D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/SirSprinkles

SirSprinkles

Voice your opinion Done!


(4/0/0) 100% Approval; Ended 23:52, 25 October 2016

To quote myself from his talk page, "You show competence with wiki markup, a willingness to learn and grow, understanding of D&D, respectful and polite communication, helpfulness to your fellow wikians, and the capacity for teamwork. (All of the above more-so than my abrasive self) You are a prolific contributor of content to the wiki. You have played and continue to play a significant role in the 5e SRD project, as well as other smaller projects around the wiki. You even take time to greet new users, NOBODY does that! I see no reason why our community should distrust you with administrative tools. I know you haven't been a user for very long, (we're just coming up on 1 year for you) but you seem pretty invested, content-wise, in the wiki, so I feel pretty confident that you won't just vanish without a good reason." --Kydo (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2016 (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 usually use my current user abilities to clean up messy articles and fix errors, and so I envision using admin abilities to aid further in that task. Otherwise, I notice that there are many articles with Category:Stub attached to them, and so I plan on trying to trim the list down a little, either by addressing the issues or by proposing deletion if the issues are too deeply rooted to be salvaged.
2. Of your articles or contributions to D&D Wiki, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am most pleased with my work on the 5e SRD:System Reference Document. Most of the 5e SRD:Magic Items and 5e SRD:Creatures I contributed. Outside of SRD, my favoured contributions are the 5e Monsters Reimagined page and the 5e Creature Design Guide, with thanks to the other contributors to those pages.
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 usually keep my cool when handling disruptive editors, but I tend to find it harder when a user is being particularly tenacious or the edits are especially large. People all have their own opinions, so I try to judge whether others are attempting to be deliberately disruptive or if they're just getting dug in for a conflict that will (hopefully) never happen. Above all, I think its important to remain civil, because bruised egos are the surest way to start a fight, not end it.


Discussion

Support

  • Obviously, I support the action. --Kydo (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2016 (MDT)
  • SirSprinkles has been around 'n active for almost a year. His contributions are pretty much objective improvements, whether they be syntax, wikilinking, wording, or content. He's polite, constructive, and I hope he likes me. If we had salaries, he'd be up there on my list of people we should hire. My only warning would be that some people like to disappear after becoming admins, so please speak up if something's not right, because above all I want you to enjoy being here. --SgtLion (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2016 (MDT)
  • Yes. Kydo and SgtLion said it all. Marasmusine (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2016 (MDT)
  • SirSprinkles has my support. I do wish that SirSprinkles worked with the 5e SRD creatures footers at the same taime as these pages, but his understanding of syntax is well enough, he has ambitions, and he is a strong power-user for our community! I give this nomination my full support. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2016 (MDT)

Oppose

Neutral

gollark: I "like" the "articles".
gollark: Welcomememememem!!¡¡¡¡¡1!!
gollark: I might improve the "helevision" article. It doesn't cite sources and doesn't mention the links to the UBS.
gollark: Idea: WE timeline?
gollark: Please use correct capitalisation || you will not have used correct capitalisation.
This article is issued from Dandwiki. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.