D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Geodude671 (2)

Geodude671

Voice your opinion Done!

---

(7/1/2) 87.75% Approval; Ended 6:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating myself for adminship because I care a lot about this site, and feel the site is in need of another administrator. Because I was nominated for adminship previously by Green Dragon, I feel I would suit the admin tools well. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 23:13, 7 January 2018 (MST)

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: Firstly, at the moment there seems to be a large backlog of abandoned and proposed-for-deletion pages whose grace periods have expired. I'd like the ability to go through such pages and delete them if need be. I also intend to continue trying to keep the 5e sections clean, as that is the edition I am most knowledgeable about.

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

A: Earth Giant (5e Race) is a page that was a horrendous mess before ConcealedLight and I took it over. This is a page that I am pleased with not because of the actual quality of the page (though as a page I do consider it quite good), but because it is the result of my collaboration with user Concealed Light. Although in theory each page on this wiki should be a community effort (which is the reason for our attribution policy), in practice many pages (at least from what I've seen) have only one substantive contributor, with other users editing that page only to fix spelling, grammar, or formatting issues, or to place maintenance templates. Earth Giant (5e Race) is a good example of collaboration between users to bring a page to a state where it is complete and balanced.

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 am one of just a handful of users that actually reviews other people's pages, and as a result I have definitely come into conflict with other users who disagree with my evaluation of their page. When disagreements arise, it's important to keep a cool head and communicate clearly, calmly, and civilly, even if the person you're disagreeing with does not.

---

Discussion

• I hate to sound like Indiana the Inquisitor, but before I cast my vote on this one, would you mind answering a couple more questions? -

• 1) Are there particular situations or challenges you often face/would like to face that you think being an admin would help with?
• 2) How do you think you've changed since your last RfA, and is there any way you'd still yet like to improve (even if you became an admin)?

Similar to others, I still have reservations, though I do honestly love you and your contributions, and you have improved in my eyes recently. I would personally just like (and it might help others) to understand a little more of your thoughts. (P.S. I respect the courage to put yourself up to this again, you have my love, whatever the case <3) --SgtLion (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2018 (MST)

I'd like to state that I am interested in the answers to these questions, and may change my vote to neutral or support if they are answered. I appreciate SgtLion asking them, and appreciate the time that Geodude671 will no doubt take to alleviate our concerns :) --GamerAim (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2018 (MST)

I am waiting for these answers too. I would like to add a footnote, stating that Geodude671 has been using a necessary strong arm when dealing with a lot of the problems that arise from reviewing other people's pages. I consider this a slight advantage actually. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2018 (MST)

I would like to also like to point out the recent example of the issues that came up with Shoulder Mounted Railgun (5e Equipment), where Geodude failed to explain himself and just added the needsbalance and delete templates.--Blobby383b (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2018 (MST)

Hi, sorry I didn't reply to this earlier; real life kind of happened, and while it was happening I've taken the time to think long and hard about these questions. Asking these questions is not a problem by any stretch :)

• 1) Back in July, I volunteered to help sort list pages and separate out joke pages and derivative works (see Talk:5e Races#5e Races Organization). GD had to grant me temporary admin privileges to sort this, as a lot of those pages were fully protected. If I were an administrator, I'd be able to undertake similar maintenance tasks in the future and do things like correct transcription errors in the SRD (which I notice on occasion). I also encounter vandalism, spam, and copyright violations occasionally, and I'd like the ability to deal with them directly rather than report it to someone else. The ability to protect pages would also be helpful, whether that be to intervene in an edit war or by request to place the {{Locked Page}} template on it (I've asked for that template to be placed on "my" pages in the past; even if I became an admin I'd probably ask another admin to look it over first if I wished for that page to be locked).
• 2) This might seem silly given recent events (see GA's link below), but I do believe my judgment has improved since my last RfA. While I held temporary admin powers back in late July/early August, some may remember that I threatened to block as a punitive measure an admittedly disruptive user. In this instance I clearly did not follow my own advice of keeping a cool head, and I definitely got a bit hot under the collar. (I should note that I did block that user a few hours later when they continued being disruptive.) Were I to become an admin now, I am confident that I would not make the same mistake again. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive, and I lost sight of that when I made that threat.

As for ways in which I would still like to improve, other users have stated that I can be a bit overzealous when applying maintenance templates to pages. I also sometimes assume that the issues with a page are self-evident, when they might not be to others. A recent example would be the page Blobby linked above, which, in its original state, dealt 20d20 damage, in addition to other problems. I thought this was ridiculously large enough that others would be able to recognize the page's issues at a glance, but this was not the case. I would like to note that I have a desire to listen to feedback and to correct myself.

I would also like to say that you shouldn't feel bad about giving me negative feedback (as long as it's not in the form of a personal attack). I have a thick metaphorical hide, and it's no big deal (for me, at least) if this RfA fails (or succeeds) and you shouldn't feel bad about opposing this if you feel I would be unfit for the position. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 17:02, 14 January 2018 (MST)

One more thing, since I took my sweet time replying to this, would it be alright if we extended this RfA? Maybe just half a week, to 18:00 on the 18th? — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 17:17, 14 January 2018 (MST)

I am all for extending the RfA, and would also like to say that you have gotten better about talking to other users over the last couple of months. Plus, you are well versed in D&D 5e, are willing to help other users, and can help with admin responsibilities, but as shown on your talk page, you still sometimes make mistakes. While I don't think you are ready to be an admin quite yet, it is good to see that you constantly improving.--Blobby383b (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2018 (MST)

Thanks for answering, I do appreciate the pressures of the meatworld. And aye, glad we extended the RfA. --SgtLion (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2018 (MST)

• Please undo this, he is is horrible at how he randomly put delete tags on pages that seem complete and fine, and now i simply see this site going down hill faster and being ruined. This makes me glad that I have been uploading to homebrewry instead of here recently. --DraconicMan (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2018 (MST)

If you opposed my request for adminship, the time to make yourself heard would have been during the two-week period when discussion and voting was going on. As I have expressed to you before, I do not add maintenance templates to pages frivolously. In the case of Drider (5e Feat) and the two similar feats that we fought over, the "corruption" variant rule you tried to use wasn't on the wiki, and the feats themselves were greatly more powerful than anything released in first-party material. In the case of another page we fought over, Black Blooded (5e Class), the crunch on that page was completely fine, but the grammar and terminology on that page needed (and still need) much improvement, so I placed a {{wording}} template on it; I didn't even try to delete it, because the mechanics of the page were sound. If you feel this site is "going down hill" and you are unhappy with the leadership, if you explain your issues (preferably on User talk:Admin) in detail, we can address them. Your concerns may be perfectly legitimate, but we won't know unless you communicate them. But as I see it currently, it seems like you simply have a personal vendetta against me for attempting to enforce quality standards. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 19:17, 11 February 2018 (MST)

For the record, the only way to undo this is to renominate Geodude671 for adminship. I feel that he has been doing a great job, and would support him again. --Green Dragon (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2018 (MST)

Support

• In light of Geodude671's response, I essentially saw what I was looking for - i.e. The willingness to respond to people's concerns, and the understanding of the role of admins. Geodude671 has shown a great desire to improve dandwiki, he's done a lot in pursuit of this, his willingness to take on the challenging aspects of that pursuit is a big plus, too. He's been professional, courteous, and practical in all of our interactions. Perhaps the biggest swinging factor for me is a proven good ability to adapt in response to constructive feedback. I feel there is still some improvement to be made, largely in effective communication with new/problem users (though I recognise there are some inevitably heated conversations). Be assured I am now of the position that giving Geodude671 access to admin tools would be a net benefit to the wiki. Though I can still understand a reticence for others to agree. --SgtLion (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2018 (MST)

• While I still hold my reservations described below, I also think it was unfair of me to oppose this RfA so quickly. Geodude671 can seem too eager or zealous at times, but I'm willing to support giving him a shot if it's what he and other admins want. In truth, nothing would please me more than to see Geodude671 (whom I have had the pleasure of working alongside these past 8 months or so) take up the role of a fair and productive admin. It's my sincere belief that whatever issues we've had in the past can be resolved going forward.--GamerAim (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2018 (MST)

• I'm definitely all for Geodude becoming an admin. The word "zealous" is being thrown around in this discussion when it comes to Geodude's behavior, but I feel like that word has too much of a negative connotation. In my opinion, this passion is what this website needs when it comes to an admin. Every time he gives help to anyone's homebrew content, including mine, you can tell that he's incredibly dedicated to creating quality content. Because of this passion, having him as an admin would definitely improve this site! As long as Geodude uses his admin powers for good, which I'm sure he will, I can't wait to see him become an admin! I wish you the best of luck in the voting process, Geodude! :) --EpicBoss99 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2018 (MST)

• Even when I voted neutral, I still believed Geodude would make a good admin as shown by my comments made in the discussion above. After considering the fact that Geodude always strives for improving the wiki, and is willing to improve himself, which is a rare trait, I believe he will become a fine admin. While Geodude has had rough spots, I believe I looked at their edits too negatively. Being an active user on the wiki that is constantly trying to improve or explain things inevitably leads to some disagreement, and Geodude has gotten considerably better at dealing with these issues civilly. With my last reservations about Geodude gone, I can put my full support behind making Geodude an admin.--Blobby383b (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2018 (MST)

• Geodude671 took the advice from his last nomination and has improved through it. Reading his responses to this nomination lead me to support his efforts to become an administrator. I agree that Geodude671 will be a net benefit to D&D Wiki, the community, and the responsibilities of administrators here. I do not hold any reservations about Geodude671's capability as an administrator, and I look forward to welcoming him as part of the "Face" of D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2018 (MST)

• Geodude671 always struck me as a super responsible dude (lol), and I actually was quite surprised when I found out he wasn't an admin already. So my vote is for double thumbs up (Varkarrus (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2018 (MST))

• I said I would support you the next time you got RfA and I still believe you deserve it. I believe you were already improving last time and its shown. The growth has continued as well. At times, I see the callous behavior stil, and I'll say we are all human. I think you're still going to make mistakes, but you act on good intentions. I really liked the way you recently handled an issue on the Discord channel about a race. While you focused more on a different topic/trait being discussed, you still helped with a solution. I am happy to see this, and I wish you luck with your adminship. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2018 (MST)

Oppose

• I really hate to do this twice, but as recent events have shown, I still find Geodude too zealous a user. As I said last time, I think he means well and is overall a great asset to the wiki, but I don't think he's shown enough improvement in his restraint or ability to interact with certain groups of users (namely those who create content which does not immediately conform to site standards) without escalating the situation. He has gotten better at it, particularly with easier (for him, at least) access to communication with me and SgtLion to help resolve issues, but I'm afraid we'd have to re-nominate him (for demotion) in the near future.--GamerAim (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2018 (MST)

• Geodude may be a helpful user, but his overzealous behavior, "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" attitude, and his espoused mission to "improve [D&D Wiki's] poor reputation" (from his user page) smack to me of warning signs that he will engage in excessive administrative activism. Quincy (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2018 (MST)

That may initially appear to be the case, but from my observations authority figures (wiki admins aren't really authority figures, although they're sometimes seen that way) engaging in extreme or excessive activism can drive existing users away from a site, which would run counter to my goal of improving the site and its reputation. A really good example of this is the Great Schism from several years ago, which resulted in a large group of users leaving the site. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 17:02, 14 January 2018 (MST)

I'd like to go one record saying that I still have reservations and I'm not about to change my vote. Nevertheless, I still appreciate that you've taken the time to answer our questions and explain yourself. Quincy (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2018 (MST)

Neutral

• I largely agree with GamerAim points about Geodude's edits, but I have also not seen Geodude add templates to pages that didn't deserve them. I believe Geodude largely means well, but often times their edits come across as overzealous when Geodude does not discuss why changes need to be made before enacting them. By just having a bit more patience and attempting to talk about a pages issues, among being more amiable towards other users, I believe Geodude would make a fine admin.--Blobby383b (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2018 (MST)

• I haven't been here very long and I've been absant during Geodude's previous attempts so I'll remain neutral. I agree with most of what has already been said so far and would like to add that having an admin as good with 5th edition as Geodude would be great as I find myself pretty concealed with backlog(pun intended). Also, while I did enjoy working with Geodude on that race and was pretty happy with the outcome that overzealous nature of his ment that he did most the talking and editing once he got on board though this was some time ago. ConcealedLight (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2018 (MST)

• I'm going neutral because there's valid arguments on both sides, but I would lean on Oppose because of past experience. That, and I'm an on-off user so I feel like I'm not qualified to be making judgements like this, but life gets in the way, and I will admit some of that experience stems from being a newbie in a different setting so it was a bit of fear holding me back. And having a crappy DM. An interesting word brought up was "zealous," and that is both a good and bad thing. Good, because there's someone passionate about the work they do and would like to see the work blossom. Bad, because one can get overzealous and can start causing problems more than solve. I am a firm believer of "Actions speak louder than Words" (Irony aside because we're on the internet) and I could see the potential for the site to improve, and that zeal can help. But (and I know I shouldn't let personal thoughts get in the way, but to me, it's a bit of a sore spot) seeing pages with those "This page is scored X; scores between X-X are the recommended score" templates really kills the feel of a site. Yes, I get balance is a thing and every page should strive to achieve that balance, but putting a score to pages feels more like "Stop Having Fun, Guys!" rather than achieving the intended goal. Yes, this point should go on those page instead, but I'm bringing it up here because it feels like Geodude worships those templates like they were absolute law. While my above point was a major negative, I'm in the "Neutral" section, and I'm someone who can turn Lemons into Lemonade, back to Lemons, then into a combustible lemon that burns Aperature Science down by careful studying and applications of other items and chemicals accident. While that zealousness can get in the way, and as I mentioned, can cause more problem than solve, there's the flipside of that point: Someone is getting stuff done. And that's what Geodude's doing. They're actually going around and making sure everything's cleaner, taking the initiative and leading the charge. And that's a good thing because someone needs to. If given the chance, the long-run feel might get better and more people might decide to join in, which can help in creating a stronger community. Everything out in the open, I'm going to close by saying that, as a general community we all have a role to play. Geodude has the potential, like everyone else, and is willing to take charge. I feel there are some rough edges, but like any diamond, it can be refined to a sparkle. I remain neutral because there's a line between "Balance" and "Fun" that I think Geodude can still find. D&D is still a game. Just because a page is "Balanced" doesn't mean it's "Fun," while a page is "Fun" doesn't mean it's "Balanced." Now if only one of my players can stop treating D&D like a video game and go "I'm going to take attention away from everything else and do my own thing because I can!"

Nightmares are dreams too... (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2018 (MST)

There's a lot in here, golly. I would mention that we do have a general consensus that we should be enforcing balance (as this makes an article fun for *everybody* instead of just one person - And lets people browse with an understanding that stuff is likely to be balanced for their use), though I can understand an aversion to quantifying this, I personally think scales can be a helpful indicator. So I understand your points, and they're perfectly valid in making your vote, but I wouldn't entirely blame Geodude671 for all of this. --SgtLion (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2018 (MST)

Though, you can blame me and all the work I did on the Musicus Meter :3 ConcealedLight (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2018 (MST)

Not even kidding, ConcealedLight, I follow that thing like the bible. ;D EpicBoss99 (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2018 (MST)

I mention the score deal mostly because of my early days on the site, pages I liked and utilized for my characters were hit with a balance issue, followed by a subsequent "Score System" template placed by Geodude, and it felt very demoralizing. I was thinking of waiting some days in case the page's author wanted to fix it, and Geodude would immediately get to work within a few hours. In my first slashed message, I mentioned having a "Crappy DM," and I was kind of serious. He was always trying to give my group de-buffs while making it more difficult for us to overcome the de-buffs. Not even the SRD was safe; it was always a challenge to work with playing with him (and still is) to a point where I thought Geodude and my DM were the same guy (and admittedly, I still have my suspicions, but that's not the topic here.) Having more experience and understanding the system, I get balance, but then again a DM can be all "I have a flying creature here wearing Plate Armor+3, a Shield+3 and a Longsword+3" while I'm barely struggling to afford decent armor, let alone +1 and I need Specific armor to fly, while the DM gets free reign. I guess I'm more of a "Gameplay and Story Integration" guy. But I try not to let personal bias get in the way when making a judgement. Nightmares are dreams too... (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2018 (MST)

Yeah, I completely relate to that mindset, Umbra. When I first started playing, I had the same exact dedication to story integration like you said, but my DMs wouldn't let me play the race variants and classes that I made. So I mainly use templates like the Musicus Meter as a sort of validation if the DM wonders if my content is balanced for use in a game. Sometimes, though, the DM would let me buff my class/race to a place where score templates wouldn't matter, so it's a win for both me and my DM!! :D --EpicBoss99 (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2018 (MST)

Just gonna echo Umbra on this. I've been absent a few weeks but still check watchlist and recents and the Musicus thing is like cancer currently. I didn't see Geo being one for hammering into people's heads though, perhaps something has changed (my 6ish months on the wiki I've seen it once from him) Concealed knows its him, and its not a criticism of him, its criticism of the that darn scale! As said, I think it turns the game into numbers thing about optimization. Going forward, I think I am going to have more disagreements involving this scale than anything else if it persists to spread like the plague. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2018 (MST)

It's very important to note that the Musicus scale is a guideline, not a rule. The mountain dwarf scores 8 on that scale when the recommended score is 4-6, but very few people consider that race overpowered. It's important to use your own judgment alongside the scale; it's just a tool to help judge balance. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 14:10, 19 January 2018 (MST)

Well I've got some bad news for you then. I don't intend to stop going through every single race on the 5e homebrew page until I've reached the bottom. In my journey from the top to the bottom of the page, I apply either a maintenance template to the page sighting concerns or a musicus template to the talk page. The musicus template is added to serve the purpose of showing the author or another user the standard on which I based my decision on. I'd also like to ask you not use such language on the wiki, especially in a RfA page. If you have any issues with my procedure please feel free to leave a message on my talk page or if you have a concern in regards to the meter please leave it on its talk page. ConcealedLight (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2018 (MST)