D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Sepsis

Sepsis

Sepsis's Nomination. Done!

---

Voice your opinion (4/0/0) 100% Approval; Ended 19:00, 22 October 2009 (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.

I would focus primarly on helping users with both constructive feedback, and the layout/format of thier Articles, to help improve the quality of the Wiki's content and to assist others with creating material usable by the widest group of Players. -- Sepsis 21:16, 15 October 2009 (MDT)

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

Of the Articles I have contributed, currently I would say my 4e material is the most satisfying. With the game of D&D moving ever forward in its new incarnation I feel those Articles have the most relavance for both those new to the game and those who have found the great depth this edition has given us. -- Sepsis 21:16, 15 October 2009 (MDT)

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?

Yes..I have had conflicts with other Users in the past, but I do feel that I make every attempt to be humble and to find a common understanding between us. In the future I believe I would make greater effort to allow others thier own opinion without feeling a need to "correct" them, and honestly step aside when I see a disscussion moving in the wrong direction. -- Sepsis 21:16, 15 October 2009 (MDT)

I would like to note, just to note; not to make a judgment as such, that Sepsis has a 1:1 warning number (Talk:Graveborn (4e Creature)). --Green Dragon 21:40, 15 October 2009 (MDT)

General comments

I'm very honored to have been given this opportunity to help my fellow contributors, and regardless of how this "election" turns out I will always be willing to help anyone in any way I can. So I only ask that folks give honest feedback when "voting", because no matter what I feel that it can only help me be a better member of this community. Thank you for your time. -- Sepsis 21:16, 15 October 2009 (MDT)

As an admin are there any areas which you would find particularly interesting and captivating? Such as reviewing 4e articles with templates, improving them, creating organizational page layouts, CfD, cont., etc? I know you have been around for a matter of years, have a few edits, etc, however as admins I like to see an extra drive in an area or idea on D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon 23:34, 18 October 2009 (MDT)

I would be particularly intrested in reviewing 4e articles with templates, and/or improving them (with the author), so as to keep the Wiki from having a large number of incomplete or unusable creations. -- Sepsis 11:24, 19 October 2009 (MDT)

Using any templates in general or having a specific focus (such as formatting or stubs)? Also, as another general question, would we be expecting an increase in edits or would they just be focused on templates and not as much on content creation and self-content improvement? --Green Dragon 21:34, 19 October 2009 (MDT)

I would focus on any article with any Template, again hoping to work with the original author to improve the article's content. In answer to your other question, once more I would gladly work with authors on improving thier creations, but I would not alter anyones creations without at least being sure the result would only improve the Wiki, and was acceptable by the author themselves. As I create new homebrew content (I tend to only create content that will be used in a game, as opposed to creation for the sake of just making something) that has playtested well I will be posting them here, and as always I will work with others in fine tuning those articles to insure they have a use to the widest number of gamers (by being balanced and unbroken). -- Sepsis 22:15, 19 October 2009 (MDT)

Of course; keeping in mind that even when Template:Author is removed (it does not work well with the GNU FDL, aesthetically, and creates a bad mindset in the time as well) authors still do feel responsible and in-charge of "their" article. You would keep this in mind of course; I'm assuming? Also would we see these edits in addition to what you currently do or in place of them? I would hate to see this take away from your game; if that would be the case. --Green Dragon 10:15, 20 October 2009 (MDT)

Yes; you have assumed correctly. And these edits would be in addition to what I currently do. -- Sepsis 12:06, 20 October 2009 (MDT)

---

Discussion

Support

• Support — I am nominating Sepsis for adminship for many reasons. He has been around the site since 2007, and has contributed greatly to D&D wiki. He routinely chimes in on discussions in a civil manner to assist users or help improve articles. When he disagrees with editors, he does so in a nice way and even ends the discussions with statements to let the other user know it was not a personal issue, just a disagreement on wiki content. Even during the recent split, he was civil to both sides while expressing his concerns and hopes for the future of the site. He is active on the site weekly and, well, I just feel like he is a great contributor to D&D wiki and could only be equally as great or better as an administrator.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   18:56, 15 October 2009 (MDT)

• Support — I believe Sepsis can do the job of an administrator. While I have never had any personal interactions with them, I have reviewed their work and found it well put. With a good attitude Sepsis can become a Pro admin. Cheers! --Jay Freedman 02:32, 16 October 2009 (MDT)

• Support — It has been a while since I have been able to be here (or contribute much in the past year O.o), but I have seen Sepsis and his work. It is very good. I know that to be an admin requires good knowledge of the format of the site (something I admit I have to get better at), and a high investment of time (something I have trouble doing here, given my real-life responsibilities.) Sepsis has proven himself able to do both those things where many others do not, and his content is quite good. Therefore, I support him in this regard. -- Aristocles 22:16, 18 October 2009 (MDT)

• Support — Although having one warning I feel that Sepsis will make a good admin. From what I have seen Sepsis knows fourth edition well and will be a great help in reviewing and helping authors understand what is required of fourth edition. Also, as stated above, working from a template side of D&D Wiki (of course just in general and as a personal preference which, like all, can be apt to change) he should help improve fourth edition in general (or revised third edition; nothing is set in stone of course). Also, with his game knowledge, I hope that Sepsis will help continue to flesh out fourth edition in areas which are not present or lacking were publications are not. --Green Dragon 9:49, 22 October 2009 (MDT)

Oppose

Neutral