D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Guy

Guy

Voice your opinion. Failed.

---

(4/2/0) 66% Approval; Ended 11:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Guy is a long-standing, if somewhat mysterious, user. He's always been helpful, knowledgeable and I think that his work on the Hyrule 5e campaign setting goes a long way to show both his dedication and his grasp of D&D 5e mechanics. I think that these are qualities worthy of adminship.--GamerAim (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2018 (MDT)

Candidate's prelude

I am flattered and surprised. GamerAim had brought this up once before today, but at the time I assumed it was in jest. I am a veteran of only one year. In that time I hope my peers have seen my contributions and as a result of them have developed a positive view of me as a contributor. I would be a little surprised if our community would trust this "somewhat mysterious" fellow with adminship, but I have every confidence that I would put the privilege to good use if I was deemed worthy of it. - Guy (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2018 (MDT)

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: From my perspective, there are only a few things that should change when a contributor becomes an administrator. I still expect I will help out where I can, and believe it would be my duty to patrol recent changes more than I already do. Perhaps the only real difference therein is that I will be able to more swiftly deal with vandalism and speedy deletions, without having to forward such links to Geodude or other admins to handle.

I anticipate patroling Category:Needs Admin, Candidates for Deletion, and Abandoned quite often, though in truth such patrols will only slightly mitigate the excellent work already performed by our current staff.

I do notice many pages that get vandalized or degraded by IPs quite often, and I may take the liberty of "IP-locking" those pages. I see the act of "full-locking" any page as a last resort, however, and don't expect that is something I would often do unless someone specifically requested it of me and had a valid reason.

Finally, I expect I will on occasion be able to more diligently improve infrastructure pages that are currently locked. My sole barnstar was awarded for improving infrastructure. As much as that as I've done, I have hesitated to ask admins to make minor improvements to locked infrastructure pages, even if I myself know exactly what needs to be changed and how to do it.

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

A: As GamerAim pointed out already, I believe I'm best known for Hyrule (5e Campaign Setting). I would hesitate to say I'm "particularly pleased" with it, however. Whenever I think of it, I only imagine some of the hundreds of things I want to add or improve. I will say that I am proud of the sheer variety and quantity of content it currently contains, and how I believe all of it is balanced and decently written.

I would hesitate to hold up any single article within it as being of particular note, but more than anything else I'm proud of the bestiary. Using only it, a DM could run entire campaigns without encountering the same creature more than once.

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: Hm. To be honest, this may be a weakness of mine, and I expect it would be the most likely reason anyone would oppose my adminship. If someone appears to be arbitrarily changing something without any real reason, I usually will either revert it or partially revert it, usually to uphold spirit and intent of the original contribution and prevent unnecessary changes to content which may be actively used. (That is, after all, one of the wiki's most frequent complaints: even when a passive user finds good content, that content may be changed by the time they see it again.) If this response doesn't work or isn't appropriate, I usually try to present my specific reasoning(s) either in the edit summary or on the talk page. On one occasion when defending my own work, my frustration developed into unnecessary sarcasm, though at least that issue still ended without further strife.

I'll never be proud of being involved in a conflict on this wiki, but I feel as though I can take pride in the fact any conflicts I've touched usually ended peacefully. There are some regrettable instances where I feel I've felt or caused rage, but in retrospect these instances those were always in off-topic conversations in the tavern or the discord server—never on or about the wiki proper.

---

Discussion

• Based on your experience with the wiki and the community as a whole, what is your opinion on GamerAim's rather controversial proposal for a Template:Overpowered Campaign? Could something like this work in practice? Or would it only serve as another point of criticism of the wiki as a whole? —ConcealedLight (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2018 (MDT)

I was intentionally reserving my opinion as I don't have a very strong stance on it. I can see where GamerAim is coming from. It is true that part of the reason overpowered content is problematic is because readers don't realize it's overpowered, and using such a template would help mitigate that issue in the short term. But even if such content is labeled, a DM probably wouldn't want to use it anyway, so there isn't any point in it being in public wiki space. The ideal solution to the astromancer class is what occurred; it wasn't deleted, but it was moved out of public wiki space.

I think that solution, or something like it, is what should be done with any intentionally-overpowered but otherwise good content that is actively defended. Keeping it separate, like "decent" April Fools pages, would be best. This solution keeps the contributor's work, but doesn't present it in a forward way that suggests random strangers should use it without exceptional consideration, nor would it encourage more casual contributors to make similar overpowered content.

All that said, I think I would disagree with the creation and wide dissemination of an "overpowered" template even if it did separate the overpowered content from the normal content. As I just implied, the widespread use of the template in high-traffic areas would encourage users to create overpowered content just because they could. Considering the vast majority of overpowered stuff I've seen on this wiki is of poor quality and would be considered unusable even after improvements, that is something I think shouldn't be actively encouraged.

For minor departures from balance—"potentially unbalanced" content that could reasonably be used with consideration, like Large races or flying races in 5e—we already have Template:Design Disclaimer. The only purpose of the template I can see would be for large departures from balance, which a DM would probably consider unusable anyway.

In short, the template could work in practice, but I think it would be best for the wiki long term if it wasn't. - Guy (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2018 (MDT)

Thanks for the response. I was going to ask about the MM next since you seemed to have an individual perspective on it from the discord but after reading through the 16kb edit you made on the talk you've already written enough on the topic :^) —ConcealedLight (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2018 (MDT)

Support

• As above :) --GamerAim (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2018 (MDT)

• Per nom. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:42, 5 June 2018 (MDT)
• Beyond his knowledge of 5e rules, design, and philosophy, I think Guy also has knowledge for necessary maintenance tasks. Allowing Guy to use admin tools would only help current admins. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2018 (MDT)

• Guy has a strong grasp of wiki syntax, which particularly benefits the infrastructure pages with minor problems. Guy has a very keen eye for editing pages that can be improved. He has added good content (albeit with confusing summaries), and I would be proud to call him an admin (if not this nomination then another one soon!). --Green Dragon (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2018 (MDT)

Oppose

• While I can see how Guy would be an excellent addition to the administrative team I feel that his sporadic and as GA would describe mysterious nature is worth taking into consideration or at the very least discussing. In my experience as an admin and before that as a user, Guy seemed to be this unknown variable that would come and go and at irregular intervals and seemed to take criticism poorly. While it is clear he has improved recently, I am uncertain how long it is before he may disappear again and my own attempts directly and otherwise have failed to decern what actually seems to be the issue. I recall a particularly odd case recently where Guy had blanked a dozen pages on the Hyrule setting after a user made a reasonable edit to one of the pages on the 17th of May as seen here. While I was asked not to give him a warning for such a clear violation of policy, I can't help but wonder if granting administrative rights to users that require special or preferential treatment in this manner is a good idea. Until adequate discussion is had I will have to oppose this nomination. —ConcealedLight (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2018 (MDT)

There are gaps in my time here where I have not made edits for several weeks. This is tied to what I do for a living. I intentionally avoid talking about my personal life, but due to the nature of my job I sporadically go without internet access and other luxuries for days or weeks at a time, and sometimes departure occurs with little warning. - Guy (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2018 (MDT)

Thanks for clarifying that, I was under a different impression entirely. Given the quantity as well as the quality of your contributions when you are here I find this to be an acceptable response. —ConcealedLight (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2018 (MDT)

I feel the term "blanked" is inaccurate, but I did remove most racial traits from several races I had previously made. I had intended to build them back up in new and improved forms in one fell swoop, but after some backlash they were returned mostly how to where they were before I could make meaningful headway. In retrospect, I should have held the races in place until changes were ready. Until this point, I was unaware I had received any "special or preferential treatment." Although I wasn't given a formal warning, this issue in particular was brought up to me by different individuals both on this wiki and through Discord. - Guy (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2018 (MDT)

That seems fair and the edits don't contradict that. However, I feel the approach could have been done better, putting "¯\_(ツ)_/¯" as the edit summary, for instance, gives the impression that you'd given up, especially since it came after that user's edit. —ConcealedLight (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2018 (MDT)

I can see how my summaries were misleading. I was trying to express that I'd given up, but only that I'd given up on the races in their current form. Reworking them to the extent I imagined would have taken a great deal of work, not only on those pages but in other areas of the campaign setting's content. They would have broken the norms for 5e races in ways that, in hindsight, probably wouldn't have been worth it. - Guy (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2018 (MDT)

• I like Guy. This vote has literally no relevance to them, as I'd likely support them under other circumstances. I think potentially promoting more than one admin in a given month in our small active community is too much upheaval. Simply asking for trouble. --SgtLion (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2018 (MDT)

Neutral