D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Geodude671

Geodude671

Failed.

---

(1/2/3) 33% Approval; Ended 0:00, 14 August 2017

Geodude671 has demonstrated a great interest in collaborative edits. His work with multiple users throughout 5e is noteworthy. Geodude671 has shown a keen interest in upholding editing standards, and responds equally to vandals and edits which add false information to pages. An admin's tools fit Geodude671, and will increase the quality of D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2017 (MDT)

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: I already try to keep the 5e sections clean. I've reverted and reported vandalism, balanced or reworked a number of pages that were unbalanced and/or barely usable before I touched them, and tried to work with other editors that disagreed with my edits. For a period of time I held temporary administrator privileges to help sort list pages (Talk:5e Races#5e Races Organization), and in addition to editing the protected pages for which I was given those privileges, I removed some spam, deleted two pages for infringing on WotC copyright, deleted several unneeded redirects, and protected a ton of OGL pages (which I then unprotected because an actual admin let me know that those pages were unprotected intentionally). I also blocked one user for personally attacking other users, then sought confirmation from actual admins that that was OK for me to do. If I were officially given administrator status, I would use the privileges granted by that status to help maintain the wiki; in addition to what I did while I had admin powers temporarily, I also see myself blocking disruptive users, and regularly going through Category:Candidates for Deletion and deleting pages, following the site's deletion policy.

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

A: I am fairly proud of my dread fighter prestige class, which I rescued from abandonment. It is a 10-level prestige class intended to emulate the class of the same name from the Fire Emblem franchise. The page has {{requestreview}} on it because I try to seek feedback from other users before declaring something "balanced," even if only in the tavern chat, and it probably still needs some tweaking, but I'm still proud of it. I'm also proud of it because of something that has nothing at all to do with the wiki: that page was typed out entirely on a 3DS, because I didn't have computer access at the time. I'm also proud of my Manakete race, also based on something from Fire Emblem. Both pages are going to be part of my campaign setting based on the worlds of the Fire Emblem franchise, in a similar manner to how Hyrule (5e Campaign Setting) emulates the world of the Legend of Zelda franchise.

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 have had several conflicts with other users, mostly with users getting offended over my editing "their" page, or someone else having done so. In general I try to take the high road when dealing with uncivil or disruptive users. I have had one conflict (that I can think of) where the user I came into conflict with had a legitimate grievance: when first I laid eyes on the page Catfolk (5e Race) it suffered from a host of issues. I reworked the page to better fit 5e's design standards, and after I did so, the original creator of the page contacted me because they felt that the page had drifted away from their original intent in the time they were gone from the site. Specifically, the user wanted the race to be able to be Small-sized. I ended up making a Small-sized subrace in the end; the creator originally disliked the idea, but after some back-and-forth they seemed to agree with me (or at least, they never replied to my last message). Looking back, I realize that I could have been a little nicer, but overall I don't believe myself to have acted in an uncivil manner. (I should note that the conversation started on my talk page, and later moved to the talk page of the article in question)

---

Discussion

Support

• Per above. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2017 (MDT)

Oppose

• Geodude671, while having the makings of an admin, I do not feel is quite ready. He is not only a very new member, and I would never support the nomination of an admin who had been here for less than a year, but he still displays some behaviors unbecoming of an admin. While his behavior has improved in the short time he's been here, and he's displayed a willingness to correct himself that I find quite rare, I don't think he's quite there yet. I don't think he'd be able to handle everyone in the proper mannerisms I'd expect from an admin. However, the biggest issue I have is his recent use of his temporary admin privileges given to him for one very specific purpose to perform duties he was not authorized to perform (from protecting pages to blocking users). This is, IMO, a huge breech of protocol and trust. If he found himself unable to resist using his privileges outside of his authority, I do not think I can trust him to properly use his privileges once granted. I understand that he meant well, but I don't think he can follow procedure. A new user expresses wanting to be an admin, requests temporary adminship for a wiki task, then uses it outside of his authority. I think it's a great editor and a great guy, but I don't think he's a good admin (yet). I just don't see how I can trust him :( --GamerAim (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2017 (MDT)

• I feel Geodude's intentions are in the right place, and he routinely attempts to improve the content of D&D Wiki. My experience with him suggests he generally knows his stuff. He is most often cordial, but is still able to confront other users over edits that bring down the wiki's standards. However, I share GamerAim's concerns with what could be seen as abuse of privileges. I remember reading the talk page where Green Dragon granted temporary admin privileges for a very specific purpose, and as I recall those privileges lasted much longer than that purpose; furthermore they were used for several things for which they were not granted, recently including what I would have personally called an unnecessarily hasty block.

Much like almost everyone else here, I also feel Geodude is simply too new here. I've been here less than six months, and even I remember when Geodude was brand new. In another six months, if he's still as positive an influence as he is now, and I'm still around to vote for him, then at that time I expect to give him full support—but not just yet. - Guy (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2017 (MDT)

Neutral

• Egh, I was hoping this nomination wouldn't come up for a couple more months. I like Geodude671, both as a person and a contributor, I think he has a good head, and he clearly suffers from a burning desire to help in any way he can. However, I relate to GamerAim's comments above. And to repeat the sentiments, I think he has his heart in the right place, has a very valuable willingness to learn, and contributes a great deal of value, in many ways. I just.. can't stress enough that I like him.

But his willingness to help has worked against him occasionally, I feel - For example, the block he made, against an admittedly disruptive user, breached warning policy, where perhaps there might've been a better outcome. I also feel Geodude671 still needs to brush up on his manner of dealing with poor users, things like threatening to block somebody as a punitive measure, or because they 'asked for it', only raises tension and arguments; and is an attitude I would personally hope dandwiki not be known for.

I, utterly and sincerely, hope Geodude671 sticks around and continues to improve, admin or no. I want to just, like, keep stressing that he is a great person to have around. If this nomination doesn't succeed, and these couple, small issues improve, I would seriously consider nominating you again, and soon. --SgtLion (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2017 (MDT)

• I can only echo what SgtLion has said, word for word. It's just a matter of a bit more experience and learning the policies regarding the admin tools and I think he'll be suitable for adminship at some point. Marasmusine (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2017 (MDT)

• I feel that it is a little too early to make Geodude671 an admin. He shows many positive attributes, as the above have stated, and I think he'll be a suitable admin in the future. SirSprinkles (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2017 (MDT)

• I had to look at discussions to get an idea of some things being said. My concern is Geodudes lack of consideration for others' work. There is a personal duty within Geodude671 to change work how he deems fit. There was a specific time a user said thank you multiple times for Geodude671 not making changes prior to discussion. I make this post in fear that my work will be messed with now. Another thing I saw, was the communication with others. Rarely does it seem Geodude671 is open to suggestion. There's a borderline elitist attitude that another user's idea and wants for their work isn't right and he has a personal obligation to make everything in his vision. Geodude671 is very active and makes a lot of changes which should be good, but not at the expense of other peoples' work being at risk. These homebrews can be tailored at your game table without altering someone else's work. I'm skeptical of future adminship, but I'm a rook on this site and only see bits and pieces. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2017 (MDT)

To be fair, "altering someone else's work" is the point of a wiki, it's why anyone can edit any page. Marasmusine (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2017 (MDT)

Yeah the point is to alter, and that quote is missing the essence of my point: Alter someone else's work with respect to their wishes. I must have misunderstood Help:Constructive Editing part of things. I have found plenty areas where it says this is a wiki and group effort, but I also took this link serious. I've seen yourself, Marasmusine, ask others if it is okay to alter pages. Why can it not be expected of others, especially admins? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2017 (MDT)

I usually prefer to be bold and just edit the page. If another user ends up having an issue with the changes I made, ideally they would bring it up civilly on the talk page of either me or the page in question. I usually ask first if I notice that the creator is someone known for being possessive of "their" content. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 16:25, 11 August 2017 (MDT)