D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Great Wyrm Black Dragon
From D&D Wiki
|
|---|
Great Wyrm Black Dragon[edit]
- Great Wyrm Black Dragon's Nomination.
Failed.
Voice your opinion (0/11/0) 0% Approval — Ended Early (See Below) 16:31, 10 December 2007 (MST)
I am nominating myself because I understand fully the devotion and commitment needed for wikis. I was formerly and admin for Wikipedia. One day while banning spammers on the Dungeons & Dragons wikipage, I noticed that dandwiki.com was a new external link I had never known. I have always love D&D and since wikipedia was becoming corrupt, I renounced my adminship and decided that I would like to help out dandwiki.com
- 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 plan on banning people for spamming. I also plan on making bots to keep dandwiki up to date and faster
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to D&D Wiki, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: Not as of yet because I am a farely new member
- 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 never had any conflict on dandwiki!
- General comments
Discussion
Is... this a serious request? I'm having a bit of difficulty taking it seriously. I kinda want to add it to Category:April Fools. —Sledged (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2007 (MST)
- Good idea... --Sam Kay 03:14, 9 December 2007 (MST)
- Okay. Good to see I'm not the only one who finds this ridiculous. I saw the RFA on the main page, checked out his user page and was about to revert the vandalism I saw... Then I noticed it wasn't vandalism. Some of his user page information is racially offensive. I don't remember if we had a "Terms of Use" on signup but if there is, I think Great Wyrm Black Dragon should get a warning and be asked to remove the content. That is up to the admins here of course, but really... Not cool. --Aarnott 13:15, 9 December 2007 (MST)
- I agree, his user page is very offensive. See also User talk:Great Wyrm Black Dragon#User Page. --Green Dragon 16:09, 9 December 2007 (MST)
- Kill it hard and fast. This is kind of what I was getting at. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.93.181 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 10 December 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts.
Support
Oppose
- Oppose Considering the potentially offensive things on his user page, I oppose Great Wyrm Black Dragon becoming an admin. I believe that admins should be, as has been said elsewhere, "the face" of the wiki. I personally do not feel comfortable being part of a wiki with an admin who posts such offensive things, and I'm certain I'm not the only one who feels that way. However, considering the vandalism attacks that occurred moments ago, if I'm told that those posts were part of the vandalism, I'll retract this vote. --Daniel Draco 19:09, 7 December 2007 (MST)
- As the vandal in question, Black Dragon himself has reverted the changes I made to his page to it's current version, and added onto it. You can easily check the history log to see himself add his offensive information before any vandalism began. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.228.202.181 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 December 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts.
- Oppose This user is abrasive, uncouth, and irresponsible. Please remember this discussion: User talk:Green Dragon/Archive 6#You Suck!!!. If he becomes an admin, I might consider leaving the wiki. That is how strong my aversion to this user is. –EldritchNumen 19:45, 7 December 2007 (MST)
- OpposeI oppose because of the above mentioned. --Dhyn Ktonos 19:51, 7 December 2007 (MST)
- Oppose I believe an administrator must remain neutral when it comes to the individuals who add to this page. They need to watch out for inappropriate contributions but should not make judgments on the people who make those contributions. His user page clearly points out that he is not ok with certain life styles or races. He hates "non-Mormon," "sand-niggers," "gays," and many other people. I fear that he would abuse his administrative powers to ban people who he dislikes. His primary goal in becoming administration is to ban people for spamming. Spamming usually means posting unwanted advertisements but some times it can simply mean posting unwanted posts. --Mander 20:17, 7 December 2007 (MST)
- Oppose I oppose for the reasons mentioned above. When multiple users are put up for a RfA, it does not mean that every user should be put up. — Blue Dragon (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2007 (MST)
- Oppose I have seen none of this user's contributions, and he has not contributed regularly that I have seen. Having seen Archive 6, I also believe him to be irresponsible and rude. --Sam Kay 04:02, 8 December 2007 (MST)
- Oppose I would tend to oppose this nomination as a matter of principle as GWBD nominated himself. Added to the extremely offensive comments on his user page, I feel that promoting this member to Adminship would look like the Wiki community were endorsing his viewpoint. I also think the kind of bigotry that page shows gives Christians of all kinds a bad name. MorkaisChosen 07:23, 8 December 2007 (MST)
- Yes, definitely. I have to say, the comments on his user page are actually against the teachings in the christian new testament. --Sam Kay 10:17, 8 December 2007 (MST)
- After a second look at his user page, I think is is too offensive to have on this (or any) wiki. Please note the use of racist comments. Not nice. I implore an admin to do something about it, before somebody referred to on the page sees it and takes offense. --Sam Kay 10:23, 8 December 2007 (MST)
- A bit late to prevent offense, but I'm sure I got my point across as intended.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.93.181 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 10 December 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts.
- After a second look at his user page, I think is is too offensive to have on this (or any) wiki. Please note the use of racist comments. Not nice. I implore an admin to do something about it, before somebody referred to on the page sees it and takes offense. --Sam Kay 10:23, 8 December 2007 (MST)
- Yes, definitely. I have to say, the comments on his user page are actually against the teachings in the christian new testament. --Sam Kay 10:17, 8 December 2007 (MST)
- Oppose All previous ‘oppose’ comments have merit, and I will not repeat them. So far unmentioned is that this user's existing page and previous contributions appear designed to increase controversy rather than consensus. Given that record, this request for adminship seems meant to draw opprobrium. If the request be seriously meant, I suggest the user abandon his current name and attempt to build a more positive record of contribution. Roszlishan 11:04, 8 December 2007 (MST)
- I had the same impression. Was this a joke or simply a troll? I think it is rather apparant that he wont become an admin (thank you dandwiki community) and perhaps further action will be needed. But I think we dont need to rush into that. Give this person a bit more time to show his true colors more clearly.--Mander 15:23, 8 December 2007 (MST)
- Actually, he has been around for quite a while, and--as far as I can tell-- everything he does is trolling. I find it hard to believe, for example, that he user page really is anything but an effort to upset as many people as possible, as the conversation I mentioned above clearly is. I agree, some sort of action is necessary, but we shouldn't rush into anything. –EldritchNumen 16:36, 8 December 2007 (MST)
- I had the same impression. Was this a joke or simply a troll? I think it is rather apparant that he wont become an admin (thank you dandwiki community) and perhaps further action will be needed. But I think we dont need to rush into that. Give this person a bit more time to show his true colors more clearly.--Mander 15:23, 8 December 2007 (MST)
- Oppose For all the reasons above... --Aarnott 13:17, 9 December 2007 (MST)
- Oppose For all the reasons above... I hope this is a sick joke or something... Also, enyone up for ending this early? --Green Dragon 16:10, 9 December 2007 (MST)
- I say end it.--Mander 17:19, 9 December 2007 (MST)
- So, everyone okay with ending this early? Also, as a side comment, I like how this "Great Wyrm Black Dragon" has not come back to respond to his nomination in any way, shape, or form. I can tell how much he/she cares about it. --Green Dragon 20:34, 9 December 2007 (MST)
- No one will even care if it's pruned now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.93.181 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 10 December 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts.
- Not unless you count being happy as caring. MorkaisChosen 08:50, 10 December 2007 (MST)
- No one will even care if it's pruned now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.93.181 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 10 December 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts.
- So, everyone okay with ending this early? Also, as a side comment, I like how this "Great Wyrm Black Dragon" has not come back to respond to his nomination in any way, shape, or form. I can tell how much he/she cares about it. --Green Dragon 20:34, 9 December 2007 (MST)
- I say end it.--Mander 17:19, 9 December 2007 (MST)
- Oppose — Count my vote against and for ending it early. --Calidore Chase 09:18, 10 December 2007 (MST)
Neutral
