D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Hooper
From D&D Wiki
- Hooper's Nomination. Failed.
Voice your opinion (4/4/2) 50% Approval; Ended 7:00 (PM), 23 December 2008 (MDT)
I have nominated myself for adminship as I wish to be able to provide more of a service to D&Dwiki and to prevent myself from requiring the time of other already strained administrators with requests due to non-admin limitations. My D&D passion and wiki knowledge can always grow, but I believe are of a level where I can provide assistance to the site as a whole and to new users. I've also noticed that the time in which I edit the most sees the least activity out of other admins usually, and hope that I can provide a service during those hours.
- 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.
- Coding is a issue that I believe I can assist with the most. The site sees many new and non-account users who only minimally understand wikitext, and as such numerous pages of good quality require assistance being salvaged and properly coded so that the User who added it may be properly satisfied with the end result. The coding I have trouble with i can typically work my way thru, as users familiar with my recent template attempts may have seen. As I'm sure every other admin has stated, I would of course always keep an alert eye on vandalism and strive to protect the integrity of the project to the best of my abilities.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to D&D Wiki, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I began on D&Dwiki using the homebrew Valgora setting and can be seen adding to it alot. I am striving for perfection in that. I have recently began to slowly branch out and anticipate assisting, one by one, other editors bring their campaign settings to a "5" caliber for the benefit of all of our users.
- 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?
Thankfully, I can answer this question with a simple no. If anything, my experience with D&Dwiki has been extremely pleasurable and I hope that others can honestly say the same when dealing with myself.
- General comments
I wish to see the D&Dwiki grow into a resource that is first-thought/first-come for a player's mind when they wish to use the internet to further their gaming. The website functions, day to day coding, new user assistance, and vandal protection are just the tangible aspects of being an admin. It is my personal belief that an off-site image should be projected for the website, with general promotion and enthusiasm being the strong points. I have done this since first learning of the site and will continue.
- Post-Request comments
I would like to take a moment to thank everyone who has contributed to the RfA. The comments, suggestions, and thoughts are extremely appreciated. I'll be keeping in account all the things stated as I do my wiki'ing. If you have any post/follow-up questions or comments feel free to leave me a message anytime. I will continue to strive for the betterment of the wiki, and do not need to be an admin to do that. With a christmas dinner in place this evening with my daughter I will not be on to read any post-comments left after this closes shortly, so I wanted to let everyone know that I am more than ecstatic about the great feedback received, regardless of the end result. 16:19, 23 December 2008 (MST)
- Support: Hooper is a very active contributer on D&D Wiki. His work on Valgora is well set out and is one of the best campaign settings on the wiki. His work with adopting my parasite article is going good and he is co-operative with the other users if he sees something wrong on their page. His discussions also show how he helps the other users on the wiki and further shows his understanding of the DnD rules. One thing that I just remembered then (as I was looking through Hoopers edits) is his post on Hologram's talk page . This was an incident a couple of weeks ago where Hologram added some Eberron content to the wiki. After Hologram deleted what I posted (an inquiry to see if Eberron had changed to OGC), Hooper quickly placed a larger comment onto his page explaining why it was deleted. This is a great help as it stopped a possible conflict between Hologram and the administration of D&D wiki. --Sabre070 21:16, 16 December 2008 (MST)
- Support: I completely support this nomination, he is very active and well... sabre said everything we need no parrot. --Lord Dhazriel 19:22, 18 December 2008 (MST)
- Support: I also support this nomination, Hooper is productive and co-operative and has proven himself to be a very useful to the Dnd Wiki community. --SgtLion 12:42, 19 December 2008 (MST)
- Support: Hooper has proven that he has the skill and initiative to be a good admin. All speculation about his character ("friendliness") is just that; speculation. I have never seen Hooper be impolite to anyone, and it would be wrong of me to judge someone for something they may or may not potentially do (be rude.) So, as long as he has the time and will to devote to this wiki, I see no reason not to support Hooper for the position of admin. -- Noname 00:21, 21 December 2008 (MST)
- Oppose: Who? Only thing this guy has done was made some campaign setting and filled my Recent Changes with comments on other people's campaign settings. Furthermore, do we realy need even MORE administrators? --TK-Squared 15:30, 19 December 2008 (MST)
- TK, administrators on a wiki are much different that regular website administrators. The list of our powers is as follows: we can protect/unprotect articles, we can delete/undelete articles, we can mark patrolling of recent changes, we can temp-ban/ban users and IPs that cause trouble. There is no reason to oppose granting helpful users admin status. On a wiki, "administrator" is more synonymous with "trusted user". Admins do not run the site, bureaucrats do (Green Dragon, and now Dmilewski and Sledged). The main criterion for admins are: is this person helpful and friendly to new users and is this person trustworthy enough to give access to protecting, deleting, and banning. It doesn't matter if everyone but that person are admins. As long as the person meets the criteria, it is good for the wiki to give them admin status (or "trusted user" if you will). --Aarnott 15:59, 19 December 2008 (MST)
- On the note of "comments on other people's campaign settings", it IS actually rating them all so its a great help and would you say the same about Sam Kay's hundreds of minor edits on the feats? They are both doing a service to the wiki.. --Sabre070 17:16, 19 December 2008 (MST)
- First, I know what a wiki admin does. We still don't need a few million of them. Second, Sam Kay has the decency to mark his edits as minor so I can filter them with a click of a link. --TK-Squared 17:01, 20 December 2008 (MST)
- I appreciate everyone's comments thus far, as well as their discussion. I would like to point out this discussion  in hopes of clarifying TK's Standpoint. Once again, I appreciate the feedback and understand everyone's statements. 17:12, 20 December 2008 (MST)
- In my opinion it's a good thing for somone to fill up Recent Changes; it cannot be bad. However arguing about that point is really just petty and pointless, and does not relate in the least as to whether or not Hooper would make a good admin.
- I agree - the rating of the CS's was very helpful, thank you so much Hooper.
- And, at least how I like to pretend to see it, Admins actually do run the wiki - The only change from Admin to Bureaucrat is that Bureaucrats can elect other users. I just gave Dmilewski and Sledged that power because I am currently on vacation and do not have access to internet all the time.
- Anyway, the thing about wiki's is not that someone who has been on the wiki longer has more say, it is that everything should be discussed and the logical solution should prevail. The answer to an issue should not be based off of someone with power telling someone else what to do - it should be discussed, the logic solution found, and that solution implemented. Admins should be the people who want to devote more time to D&D Wiki - to help build up the infrastructure, look over other peoples creations, discuss ways to expand D&D Wiki, etc etc. Not people who tell someone what to do because they have more power. Is Hooper ready to be that, is the question we all should be asking. --Green Dragon 03:30, 23 December 2008 (MST)
- Green hit it right. If you have any direct questions for me, feel free. 09:09, 23 December 2008 (MST)
- Oppose: I do have to side with TK on this one. As I said above, an admin needs to be friendly and helpful to other users (check), and also be trustworthy (no check). I don't know Hooper well enough to say that it is a good idea for him to be an admin. From the edits I have seen, I'm sure down the road I will not be opposed at all. Rating of the Campaign Settings was a very good start. --Aarnott 16:04, 19 December 2008 (MST)
- Just an amendment to what I said. I am opposing similarly to TK, but I do not agree with his reasons. Just making sure that is clear :). --Aarnott 11:53, 21 December 2008 (MST)
- Oppose: And me. I only noticed Hooper's existence about a week ago, so, like Aarnott, I can't say that it's a good idea for him to be an admin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sam Kay (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts.
- Oppose:I oppose Hooper, for a few reasons one being that he nominated himself, seems pretty arrogant for him to think hes that kinda material, and when we have so many admins already. Not just this but rating a load of things at once doesn't make you admin material all of a sudden , a few weeks ago I was putting feat templates on a few 3.5 feats, I did not then think I must be Admin material. ShadowyFigure 09:09, 21 December 2008 (MST)
- Neutral: We'll, since I haven't yet voiced my opinion on any of the recent requests for adminship, I decided to state my opinion of Hooper, but sadly enough, I'm going to half to remain neutral in this situation, due to several factors involving Hooper:
- The first and simplest factor is the fact that Hooper nominated my class, the Gravity Warrior, to be a featured article, and it is just plain rude to look at someone who has recently paid you that great of a compliment and insult them (not to mention idiotic).
- Secondly, Hoopers signature alone prove that he understands wikicode throughly, and the Valgora campaign setting is extremely well made, and so he could be a powerful asset to this wiki, but he could be a great asset without becoming a admin at the same time.
- Thirdly, Hooper nominated himself, and as a rule of thumb, I will never side with someone who had the gall to assume they could be trusted with power, only someone who is given power can be trusted with it, but due to my above comment about not insulting someone who has paid you a compliment, I am remaining fully neutral.
- Fourthly, while I personally cannot remember a time when the username Hooper did not exist, the above comments lead me to the conclusion that he has been online about the same amount of time I have been on, and I personally believe that is not enough time to fully understand a wiki.
- Also, TK, out of curiosity, what do you use the recent changes page for? → Rith 22:19, 20 December 2008 (MST)
- Neutral: I, too, have no strong opinion one way or the other. From what I have been able to see, Hooper's an okay guy, and I certainly have no reason to dislike him, but on the other side the first actual time I took notice of this guy's existence was when he commented on his nomination for adminship in the Tavern. I have nothing against him becoming admin, but I wouldn't care if he doesn't become one either. --Sulacu 02:20, 21 December 2008 (MST)