Requests for Adminship/Surgo2
From D&D Wiki
- Surgo's Nomination. Failed.
Voice your opinion (0/3/1) 0% Approval; Ended 1:00, 17 September 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.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to D&D Wiki, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- 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?
- General comments
Disregarded the deletion policies (see also Category:Candidates for Deletion) with his last deletions (see also http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Surgo&page= - "(restore)" for diff). --Green Dragon 01:46, 10 September 2009 (MDT)
- No, he didn't. --TK-Squared 11:08, 10 September 2009 (MDT)
- If you click the links you will see what I mean. I cannot stand people who just say things to hinder or annoy others. Banned. --Green Dragon 14:09, 10 September 2009 (MDT)
- Err, it looks to me like he followed the deletion policy to the letter. Waited two weeks with the candidate for deletion tag on the page, and then deleted the pages. Not sure what the problem is here. 18.104.22.168 14:13, 10 September 2009 (MDT)
- I restored all of the deleted pages right after they were wrongly deleted. Please learn something about MW before posting here (it's comparable to clicking the links above and looking at them). --Green Dragon 14:52, 10 September 2009 (MDT)
- Why did you nominate him when you are opposing his nomination? --Sabre070 16:30, 15 September 2009 (MDT)
- To verify or dissolve his adminship. --Green Dragon 17:14, 17 September 2009 (MDT)
Surgo's self-admitted interest and concerns for this wiki no longer exist, so it would not be beneficial to this wiki or to Surgo for him to be an admin here.11:00, 10 September 2009 (MDT)
I agree with Hooper. Although Surgo was a good admin, he is no longer an active member of this Wiki. Nominating him for adminship of a Wiki he no longer participates in seems like an exercise in futility. -- Dracomortis 15:54, 14 September 2009 (MDT)
All I would say with regard to Surgo's deletions (touched on below) is that he only deleted the articles that no one expressed interest in, and he did wait more than two weeks. I know that the reason those articles were nominated is a point of contention, but I do think it is something that merits acknowledgement. Just because some of this material belongs to our (once) more-respected D&D Wikians does not mean that all of it is of the same high quality. -- Jota 06:37, 10 September 2009 (MDT)
- Use factual points before posting. You are simply just posting to annoy and hinder others (no logig is used above and makes close to no coherent sense). Banned. --Green Dragon 14:12, 10 September 2009 (MDT)
- What...? How is it annoying (perhaps other than to you because you're seemingly trying to crush all sympathy for the exiled former users) or hindering to defend the actions of someone who did something that was within their rights (having consent of the original author). Regardless of what MediaWiki says, as the owner of this site you should know better than anyone else that a site based on a game in which homebrew material can be implemented ceases to be defined as a Wiki under the same standards as other Wikis. No copyright can be placed on factual information on Wikipedia, but "nationalizing" the work of others (removing authors' names and keeping their work on the site without their consent) is an affront to their rights as the authors. Jota's been trying to make this argument for months, but apparently to no avail. All the articles that were deleted by Surgo (whose actions were then defended by Jota and now myself) were done well within the procedural parameters laid down by this site (not MediaWiki, which shouldn't have any bearing on how this site is run), which included waiting for two weeks, etc. No one expressed interest in adopting those articles, so by that token they should be considered the same as other stagnant articles up for deletion, author's wishes aside. -- TG Cid 18:28, 10 September 2009 (MDT)
- No. That is flat-out incorrect, the history is NOT enough, it specifically specifies title page. Pay attention and think about it, we use logic here. Surgo was the best moderator this place had, when he deleted those he followed the rules to the letter. You went and changed them afterward, pretending like you had never used speedy deletion before (which in fact you have), illegally removed people's names from the stuff, and in some cases added your own name instead, falsely claiming you wrote things you didn't. At the very least, let's not make this an unfair pile-on just to sully people's names. Creating new threads about people who have left the wiki, to falsely make it seem like you'd be willing to give them adminship, but instead just use it as a forum to attack them and anyone who liked them is just... distasteful. Dragon Child 23:53, 10 September 2009 (MDT)
- The time the deletion took to happen is more then irrelevant; we are focusing mainly on quality control. The fact that history serves as "the history of the page" makes it so (with copyrights) it works. Secondly no speedy deletion is present on D&D Wiki; Surgo's time frame for deletion is simply wrong. As such, as explained below, I have "opposed" this nomination. --Green Dragon 12:20, 11 September 2009 (MDT)