D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Surgo
From D&D Wiki
< D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship(Redirected from Requests for Adminship/Surgo)
Voice your opinion (8/0/4) (100% Approval - Neutral was not counted) Ended 9:37 (PM), 5 April 2009 (EDT)
I'm nominating myself for exactly two reasons:
- Old candidates for deletion never get deleted. Spring Cleaning is really overdue on the wiki.
- I have a bot that's long overdue to run which moves the entire DnD pseudo-namespace to 3.5e cleanly, rigorously, and completely. It also needs admin privileges to run.
- 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 will do exactly the following:
- Clean out candidates for deletion that are past their date (but not ones that have active arguments going on).
- Speedy delete those annoying nothing-but-the-preload, stub pages.
- Create and run bots to do big, automated tasks that need doing but can be entirely automated (like the moving of the DnD pseudo-namespace).
- Lock pages that people want locked, fix typos and stuff in locked pages, etc.
- A: I will do exactly the following:
- I also think it's important to say what I will not do. I will not ban users (except to temporarily block IPs for vandalism). I will not expect anyone to treat me any differently because of admin status. I will not ever use the status to bully anyone, and I will expect people to argue with me in exactly the same capacity as they did before my adminship (if I get adminned, of course). I will not use admin status as a badge of any sort. I feel this needs to be said in my case because I know I'm a bit abrasive in a no-nonsense fashion, and I'm aware that that can (and has) rub people the wrong way.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to D&D Wiki, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: Uploading countless awesome Category:Tome stuff. Still in the process of formatting the four sourcebooks to be completely awesome, readable, and FA-worthy. A lot of my contributions come in the form of balance critiques in The Tavern.
- 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 minor conflicts all the time over things like balance. They've never caused me or (to my awareness) anyone else lasting grief. I have these conflicts with people I consider (and who consider me) friends. I don't think they're a big deal. Just part of my abrasive nature.
- General comments
I want to do very specific tasks as an admin. These tasks mainly involve deleting candidates for deletion (something that is long overdue and nobody is really doing), and creating and running bots. Other minor admin tasks when requested. Never using adminship in my interactions with any users.
- Support: I think Surgo would be an useful admin to the wiki, he already proved his worth and desire to improve the community many time.--Lord Dhazriel 21:11, 29 March 2009 (MDT)
- Support: He's active, and while he doesn't have the best thought out arguements, he does have strong opinions. I say give him a whack at it. --Ganre 00:56, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- Support: Some people may remember my comment on this page that, as a rule of thumb, I would never support someone who nominated themselves, but, this is an exception. I say this because this website needs Surgo. Surgo is here to delete things that have been rotting in the "delete me" box for far too long, which, is something that all admins should be doing. Also, I personally don't use flaws/traits, and so, have not cared about the ongoing discussions that have arrisen therein. Though, I have read them, and I must point out to anyone who wishes to keep the flaws that have been proposed for deletion in the wiki, that they all pretty much have roleplaying based detriments, now then, a person might ask why this is a problem, and I must point out why it is. It is because not all DM's are clever, not all PC's are going to play the flaw correctly, there is a titanic split down the center of these flaws that is unavoidable and irrevocable. A DM might butcher what would otherwise be an interesting situation. Now then, should their games be utterly decimated because they had a momentary lapse in judgement? Of course not. Therefore, roleplaying-based flaws cannot be allowed on this website. Surgo would not get rid of the entertaining parts of the wiki, he would merely get rid of the stains that people splatter across it, such as classes that are pure preload, or templates that have so little information that its not even funny (or, flaws that go against the guidelines that Wizards of the Coast themselves layed down, and yes, every single one of those flaws that were nominated for deletion does exactly that). I personally want people to come to this website and find things right off the bat that they would like to play, instead of finding the junkyard that is the base class page. As I said above, this website needs Surgo. → Rith (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- Support: Giving him a crack at adminship won't hurt the general quality of dandwiki. That, and he possesses the qualities that an admin is required to have. And, as an aside I'd probably delete a dumb flaw like Penguin Fear too if I were in the position to. This is a repository of D&D articles, not a funny bin, and even for the funny stuff we have an April Fools category. I don't see the problem that sparked the discussion below. --Sulacu 01:56, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- Support: Well, he only plans to be an admin for cleanup reasons. We definitely could use another hand with that -- especially from an active user. --Aarnott 08:06, 1 April 2009 (MDT)
- Support: Despite his self-acknowledged personality quirks, Surgo is a great supportive character in the great play of DandWiki. I think his adherance to honesty in his judgments and desire for the site to be presentable, functional, and friendly would be a great asset to us by promoting him to SysOp status. In addition to his proclaimed desires for adminship, I'm sure his capacity would stretch further, not only in carrying out article deletion policies as they are currently presented, but also to helping those who require assistance as newcomers to the site or newcomers to D&D, as many of us do in the Tavern. His assistance, I'm sure, would be instrumental in keeping balance prevalent throughout the multitudes of DandWiki articles and in the construction of many great additions to the Homebrew, and potentially to the SRD, of the site. I fully support Surgo's request for adminship. -Valentine the Rogue 21:47, 1 April 2009 (MDT)
- Support: I agree with Surgo being an admin, we really need to keep up-to date with the wiki and Surgo can help us achieve that. --Sabre070 23:08, 1 April 2009 (MDT)
- Support: Although Surgo does not have all too many edits, is a relativly new user, and sometimes can come off as having an abrasive personality, I feel that he really does have good intentions and a great want to help clean up D&D Wiki's content. --Green Dragon 17:26, 4 April 2009 (MDT)
- Oppose (Now withdrawn, see below): Were Surgo made an admin he would happily delete half the flaw list, I say this because he has already put many of them up as candidates for deletion. If something isn't quite right, that doesn't mean it's a bad idea, just that it needs editing. I have used or am currently using 70% of the flaws he's currently trying to kill. I haven't seen much of his other work but this is more then enough for me to oppose his request for adminship. (THEM 23:18, 29 March 2009 (MDT))
- I don't quite understand this vote. I said pretty clearly that I wouldn't be deleting anything that had a currently active argument going on. Surgo 23:20, 29 March 2009 (MDT)
- THEM, currently the flaw policies is with Surgo, it would be appropriate if you withdraw your vote. Or perhaps give another reason.--Lord Dhazriel 23:23, 29 March 2009 (MDT)
- Answer me this and I'll consider withdrawing my comments. What constitutes as an "active argument"? Due to the pile of fail that is my laptop I can't be on much, so I haven't been able to reply to several of the objections to the flaws. Does this mean that some of them will be deleted before I can get to them? It certainly seems to be a possibility. The D&D Wiki is a big place, and most users tend to ignore the "candidate for deletion box". Brilliant ideas have been lost his way on other sites because a couple people decided they didnt like something and got rid of it before it was found by someone who would actually use it. (THEM 23:34, 29 March 2009 (MDT))
- Well, you might want to know that we do hav e a delete log, so it is possible to see if anything was deleted. And it is entirely possible to restore deleted article, also Surgo isn't a flaw murderer. I might also point you (again) the current policies of the wiki concerning flaws. Please assume good faith, Surgo gave his time to help the wiki, not to delete brilliant ideas for powergaming reasons.--Lord Dhazriel 23:38, 29 March 2009 (MDT)
- That didn't answer my question. I asked what constitutes as an active argument. And not everybody has the time to comb through the delete log in search of salvageable material. (THEM 23:43, 29 March 2009 (MDT))
- I'd say if something hasn't been touched in a week, it's no longer an active argument. A week is a lot of time. Obviously, that's in addition to the normal two-week waiting period that a candidate for deletion gets. Surgo 23:47, 29 March 2009 (MDT)
- Then my vote stands, my laptop goes out of commission for over a month on a regular basis, and I know it isn't the worst out there. When friends let me borrow a computer I don't have the time to go hunting through a pile of deleted drivel to find the flaw I wanted to use for a character that's only half-finished. (THEM 23:53, 29 March 2009 (MDT))
- I still say I don't quite understand your vote. If you have a problem with the policy for deletion, of which I would merely be implementing as an administrator, why don't you argue about the policy in the appropriate place (Category Talk:Candidates for Deletion) instead of my request for adminship vote page?
- Partly because you are one of the few people who would actually be doing the deleting. Utterly lousy ideas can still be workable with a creative group, or might even inspire a better idea if seen by someone with a good imagination. But also because you disapprove of anything that doesn't work with your particular playing style. Call us rude, but the general consensus from my entire gaming group (about 40 people, 25 if you don't count the temporary players) is that you are inflexible, short-sighted, unimaginative, narrow-minded, and an all around threat to theis entire site. (THEM 00:20, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- Please assume good faith, Surgo simply helped the wiki. He pointed the non UA-conform flaws and put the template for deletion on them. Many of theses flaws were fixed soon afterward. I am sure Surgo prefer seeing flaws being playable than having them deleted, since the template for deletion is not final. Your comment is hostile, please apologize, this discussion have no place for insult. --Lord Dhazriel 00:31, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- This is a conversation I just had over an IM with the dungeon master of most of my games
- → DM: I hope EVERYONE is against him being an admin
- → Whatever_Desu: sadly, its 2 vs 1
- → Whatever_Desu: Surgo and Lord Dhazriel vs THEM
- → DM: wtf
- → Whatever_Desu: I would weigh in, but I am a lazy bastered
- → Whatever_Desu: >>
- → DM: dude, if he gets it hsi way, he'll fuck up the ENTIRE site!
- → DM: it'll be completely useless
- → Whatever_Desu: yup
- → Whatever_Desu: looks like it
- → DM: well, then fuck that. the moment he screws the site up, then it'll be a good thing we'll have all the useful things
- → Whatever_Desu: i'll miss being able to find random funny stuff.....
- → DM: yeah...
- → Whatever_Desu: like te unbalened but awesomly funny weapons
- → DM: same here
- → Whatever_Desu: ...
- → DM: ..
- → DM: what
- → Whatever_Desu: maybe i should log in and post the conversation we just had
- → Whatever_Desu: XD
- → DM: DO IT
- → Whatever_Desu: aye-aye mon capitan (Desu 00:38, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- While you could use a spell-checker Desu, thank you for backing me up. And I only give my trust to those who earn it in my eyes and in the eyes of my friends Dhazriel.(THEM 00:40, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- I was about to format that by meh, I am too lazy to do it. I know Surgo well, I know he only want good things for this site. So far he followed the policies of the wiki, Category:April Fools here you can find funny stuff. No need to have a loads of unusable flaws. By supporting Surgo I took my position on the debate. And trust me, I only want good for the wiki. --Lord Dhazriel 00:50, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
←Reverted indentation to one colon
- You may trust Surgo Dhazriel, but neither me nor my friends do. Seeing as we don't trust you either, your endorsement of him means little to me. What I think Desu is trying to say is that those "useless flaws" are some of the things he'll miss. Please correct me if I am misrepresenting you Desu. (THEM 01:00, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- I will miss them as well. To me, and Desu, there are no such thing as "useless flaws". They are merely for the fun of it, to make the character more interesting. They are "Character Flaws" simply that. They are meant for in game roleplaying. If you're going to get rid of one, why not all of them? Who's to say what flaws are better then others? I want them to be left alone, and I'm sure many others do as well. (TheDM 01:07, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- Last warning, please assume good faith. First: You don't trust, ok it your choice. I have little care for you and your friend either, I do care about Surgo's adminship however. Otherwise I wouldn't argue (I am not even arguing). I am going to ask one more, and one last time. Etiquette a civility. Surgo would be an asset to this wiki, at least it what I believe.--Lord Dhazriel 01:10, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- This is ridiculous. Why even have it up as a "request" and allow "discussions" if you don't even take into consideration the opinion of others? (TheDM 01:14, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- I don't even know what to answer to this, I never said I didn't took in account opinions, I just said I don't care about their opinion about me. Please don't twist my words. --Lord Dhazriel 01:16, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- You say Surgo would be an asset to this wiki, I believe otherwise Dhazriel. And excuse me for being presumptuous, but it would appear Desu and TheDM agree with me. TheDM, I am presuming you are "DM" from Desu's conversation. Either way, I don't believe I could have said either of your last statments better myself. You have summed up what I stand for quite elegantly. I applaud you sir (or madam). (THEM 01:16, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- One other thing... What is this "You don't trust" business? Ok... So am I supposed to to trust someone I have never met, and from this point in time, have only seen them try to tamper/destroy things that I have come to like? And also, that whole "never said I didn't took in account opinions" it's VERY obvious that you don't, AND that you don't care. Also, I do not twist words, I state them as they are said to me.
- And one last thing, yes THEM, you are correct. And although Desu got a chuckle out of it, or how he put it "nyuk nyuk nyuk", I am a Sir.(TheDM 01:35, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- Please assume good faith, if anyone took my words the wrong, I apologies for the confusion. But otherwise I have done nothing wrong. If it didn't cared about your opinion I would clearly state. I don't acre if you don't trust me, but I do take in account your opinion over Surgo's adminship. I am saddened by the fact I am diabolized right now, also, no you don't have to trust any and everyone. But please assume good faith, it all I ask and maybe this discussion would have been much pleaser if everyone did, on this comment I gently withdraw myself from the debate. (I don't withdraw my support however, I shall simply stop replying). Have a good day and enjoy the articles, very sincerely --Lord Dhazriel 01:44, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- Tsk. What is with all this "assume good faith"? I do not need to assume good faith, I have already been proven to not give faith by Surgo's actions. If I had no, then I would not be arguing this point. If you are going to debate, you should pay attention to the other side of the argument and not just your own. If you had, then you would understand where I come from, and why I hold to my side of the argument. This being especially stressed as I have stated exactly why I am arguing this. (TheDM 01:49, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- I've given up responding to individual comments but D&D Wiki follows Wikipedia policy where not otherwise stated, and this is the appropriate policy. Surgo 01:51, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- I still hold to what I believe. If I am in the wrong, then so be it. But I know what I've seen, and I have not seen anything good.
- End of Line. (TheDM 01:57, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- Good Faith only applies to those with no history, you're already actively trying to delete the flaws that don't agree with your style of play. Had you not, and I was the only opposition, I would gladly vote in favor of you in hopes you would be as helpful as you claim you'll be, but as things stand I don't believe in second chances for those who don't admit and correct their mistakes. If this isn't enough for you, I quote the article you linked me to. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence" (THEM 02:06, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- I really can't stand to be slandered like this. I am not "actively trying to delete the flaws that don't agree with your style of play"; we, in fact, have a flaw policy that has been developed in the wake of these events; the flaws I tagged for deletion do not fall under that policy. I would appreciate, in the future, the avoidance of personal attacks in your logical deductions that attempt to show why I would make a bad administrator (this is called ad hominem) and stick to solid, provable facts. Surgo 02:19, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
←Reverted indentation to one colon
- If you truly wish to improve the site, then edit the flaw so it fits the rule. Merely putting it up for deletion doesn't solve anything. Edit them. Don't delete the--Lord Dhazriel 03:10, 30 March 2009 (MDT)m. (TheDM 02:24, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- I know I said I sit out, but this is an exception. Please understand putting flaws to deletion doesn't make them automatically deleted. Many users salvage article and make the shiny, otherwise many doesn't get the attention and remain in a bad shape. Look as a sign of good faith, I adopt one flaw in the candidate for deletion and make it conform to UA. I invite everyone to do so.--Lord Dhazriel 02:27, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- Incompetent (3.5e Flaw) I have mine, if everyone take 5 minutes we can make quality and original maaterial for the wiki. In all the time we wasted arguing we could have fixed every flaws. --Lord Dhazriel 02:36, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- It's easy to say "Let's get rid it because it doesn't follow the rules" when you are the ones making those rules. I've read that page and even participated in the discussion. Were I a member of this site when you applied for adminship Dhazriel, I would've opposed you. If you don't want to see the flaws that don't follow your guidelines then simply go here and leave the rest of us be. This is a wiki, not alchemy. To gain something, you don't have to loose something of equal value. That kind of mindset leads to the downfall of sites such as these. (THEM 02:50, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- I am sorry I have nothing more to say, many admins and the own actually agreed on this policy. I am sorry this discussion ended like this. You are free on not agreed with us, or not trusting someone, or even oppose my adminship. Your opinion is all yours. please enjoy this wiki, I hope you have interesting contribution to add :)--Lord Dhazriel 02:58, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- I believe that we should have a role-playing suggestions section. This is where and flaws that do not fit the UA guidelines can be put this due to the fact that a flaw is a set rule (by UA) and anything that doesn't fit those guidelines technically isn't a flaw. (The 'Style of play' for most people is to follow the rules). Also, to 'TheDM' your comment about editing and not deleting pages cannot realistically be achieved, there are too many pages that haven't been made enough to make into a successful page and there has to be a point where you have to delete pages. --Sabre070 03:03, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- Look THEM, we should solve this peacefully. Go and take a sit in the tavern, I be happy to talk with you peacefully and solve the current situations. I am (mostly) alway in the tavern. So come when you want or can. Don't worry, I won't flame you, I just want a peaceful agreement.--Lord Dhazriel 03:10, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- Upon taking up Dhazriel on his offer to talk in the tavern, I have no objections to the non-UA flaws being moved to a new section (unedited). I simply didn't wish to see original material lost, even awful ideas have potential in them if seen by the right person. As long as solutions like this can occur to preserve everyone's work I withdraw my objection to Surgo's adminship. (THEM 03:36, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- This entire argument could have been avoided if you had taken a look at Talk:DnD Flaws#Official Flaw Policy and discussed the removal and/or implantation of roleplaying flaws there. This is about Surgo's adminship; not about whether or not it is okay to remove homebrew content which does not conform to the rules laid out by Wizards. Surgo is not necessarily behind the removal and/or implantation of roleplaying flaws (he is just willing to implement the decision as made by the community). You are part of the community. Instead of being against Surgo since he wants to remove roleplaying flaws, you should just be against the removal of roleplaying flaws; and make your decision about Surgo's adminship non-related. --Green Dragon 11:01, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- I have spoken in the policy discussion, and probably will again at some point. My objection was to the policy being implemented by Surgo before a solution for the roleplaying flaws was found. With that solved, my objection is withdrawn. (THEM 19:32, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- Neutral: My only objections are to material lost. When matters can be settled with that occurring, I humbly take this neutral stance. (THEM 03:40, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
- I noticed that lots of content gets lost here so I put my content on this page rather than delete it. --Sabre070 03:46, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- Neutral: I do not endorse this, but I have no reason to oppose. --TK-Squared 07:02, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- Neutral: I take a neutral stance simply because I'm sure that whatever path is taken, it will be for the best. As long as surgo doesn't go trigger happy on that deletion. (ElementEvil 21:59, 1 April 2009 (MDT))
- Neutral: I think he can do a good job, as he seems very dedicated to the job and I feel he will activtly benefit the wiki, in which he's willing to shift thru the crap we have on here and remove it. But I won't go out of my way to support a rules lawyer, either. So I shall take my place amoung the mighty ranks of Austria, Costa Rica, Finland, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkmenistan. -- Flession 07:25, 3 April 2009 (MDT)