D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/GamerAim

GamerAim

Voice your opinion Done!

---

(2/0/0) 100% Approval; Ended 20:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel that GamerAim shows great resolve for an adminship position. He engages in discussions, and keeps a level head while doing so. He does not provoke or attack users, but rather helps users understand all manner of situations. GamerAim improves pages, and is an active contributor to D&D Wiki. He also shows great ambitions with OGC:Main, but has continued this project even with little assistance or input from other users. This shows a strong resolve, and it is done in such an important area of improvement that an adminship position is only fitting for GamerAim.

Candidates Prelude

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve D&D Wiki in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list on Wikipedia before answering.

A: In addition to my usual activities, I anticipate keeping a closer eye on the recent activity log (especially changes from anonymous editors) and deletion candidates and other special pages that need admin attention in the continuing effort to remove spam and low-quality articles. As well, I'll be able to fix all the niggling issues too small to bother an admin with, mostly in the less-active reaches of the wiki less likely to receive attention (3.5e, d20 Modern). As an admin, I'd be able to fix these issues on and clean up protected pages, as well as protect pages that need protecting.

So, most of all, it'd allow me to do what I already do, but better, to improve the overall experience and utility of D&D Wiki.

2. Of your articles or contributions to D&D Wiki, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Most of my work has been templates, transcriptions and conversions, which I probably don't have the right to be proud of. There's my Supernaturalist (3.5e Class) which I wrote up on Halloween. Most prior attempts at creating a Witcher class were broken or nonsensical, clinging too close to the video game, but I like to think that mine is customizable enough to let you create Geralt of Rivia, Dean Winchester or whatever monster-hunter you want, but easy enough to understand and play. It's not perfect, but it's mine. I'm also oddly fond of Ammo (Fallout Supplement), which introduces enhanced ammunition rules for d20 Modern as part of an attempt to standardize rules for Fallout ammunition types. For whatever reason, it's one of my favorites articles.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I haven't had any conflicts, probably because I don't cross paths with many users in my work, nor have any other users caused me much stress. I can't say I agree with everyone, but I understand what this wiki is and try to help others understand it too, trusting the admins to take care of people who break the rules. My policy for resolving edit wars is to avoid them to begin with. Before making huge edits to a page I didn't create, I'll discuss them on the talk page. When it comes to edits on pages I've worked on, I'll undo edits I find detrimental. If they persist to edit the page, or I don't find the edits bad' but disagree with them, I'll take it to the talk page before undoing the edit. This way, I can resolve issues with people who actually care about the page and protect pages from drive-by-edits.

---

Discussion

Support

• Per above. --Green Dragon (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Really, as User:Green Dragon said in the nomination. SirSprinkles (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral