DF v0.42 information
  • Saves from v0.40.24 are compatible with v0.42.06! We will not be migrating to a new namespace, although the current "DF2014" namespace may be renamed to "v0.42" in the near future.
  • Please mark all v0.42-specific articles/sections with {{new in v0.42}}. For short v0.42-specific information, you can use {{version|0.42.01}}.
Updated 14:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC). This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.

Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Request for Adminship/Mason11987

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] Administrator Candidacy Questionnaire

[edit] Why would I be a good Administrator?

I understand the wiki system, setting up and manageing templates/categories. I understand the system messages (which sysops have default access to modifying). I ran the sporewiki for a year+ prior to it's launch [1] and am still a bureaucrat there even though I haven't edited in a while. I'm also an admin at sagan4wiki, which is a conceptual offshoot inspired by the spore game [2], I didn't create any of the content but the background organization/templates/messages are almost completely my work and the community decided to name the planet's moon after me because of how much I helped :D. I'm also still a sysop at cybernations wiki [3] and did a lot of organization there, though I'm inactive in that game/wiki as well now.

Basically, there are a lot of things that can be done to improve a wiki that take a lot of testing and deleting of testing pages, moving over redirects, and modifications to system messages. The people who have admin powers now are awesome "leaders" but without a lot of time describing things that can be done, those sort of changes can't be easily completed.

There are three philosophies for "admins", or sysops which have developed over time on wikipedia.

  1. People who should get the position are people who deserve to be rewarded for maintenance stuff or content creation stuff
  2. People who should get the position are people who are good leaders, and should be "in charge"
  3. People who should get the position are people who could do good without the tools, but who could do more good with them.

I think #1 is unnecessary, assigning sysop as a reward system is not the right thing to do, because it shouldn't be about a "title". This leads nicely into #2, sysops shouldn't be in charge, they should be as accountable as anyone else, and if people think they are doing badly they should remove their power or have it removed. If we need "leaders" they should be bueracrats, and should recognize that the only types of people who get sysop would be #3. #3 is where I think I fall, and I think it makes the most sense. The community at large would be best helped by people contributing exactly as much as they are capable to contribute. I feel that if people can contribute to the wiki more if they could do a couple more things, then they should have it. The key point is that most people who are content-creators or typograpical-editors do not need these powers. This shouldn't make them feel less important, because they aren't. But people shouldn't feel like they are more important just because they have the powers either.

[edit] Supporting Evidence

  • Contributions. But here are some additional logs of work I've done at other wikis just to make it clear that I am not a person who comes to wikis to screw with them. [4], [5] [6]
  • DF2010

[edit] Public Q&A

  • Q:In the next few months the next version of DF will be released. This will make a lot of information here obsolete. How do you see yourself as an admin dealing with this? --Kwieland 15:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • A: Fantastic question, hopefully this explains my idea succintcly enough. Basically I propose not only making it up to date as of the new version, but updating the wiki so that obsolete articles are easily identified and organized. Mason11987 20:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm intending to work towards this goal regardless of the outcome of this administration request. And while I don't intend to use my administration in any way to inflate my opinion on what the wiki should do at all I think the inevitable implentation of large scale projects like this requires a few of the tools that administrators have and I think if I had them I could be a lot more useful. Mason11987 20:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Public Discussion

I know that a lot of people don't know me well enough to make a judgement. I respectfully ask that you come back in a month and evaluate again, instead of making an uninformed statement. Also, if others don't mind, I don't care if this stays open until everyone gets enough information to state their opinion.
I think that this RfA thing was setup because of my comments on Briess's pages and yet I'm the only one without any comments --> :(. Mason11987 04:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know enough about you to form a worthwhile opinion one way or the other. VengefulDonut 21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
PUblic Q&A section? Mason11987 22:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That would only tell me how you would answer the questions I aksked you (: VengefulDonut 22:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

[edit] Support

  1. SUPPORT: Honestly? You sound like a very knowledgeable person, and experienced. The one and only reason this isn't a "Strong Support" is because of the username. Call me prejudiced, but "Mason11987" is pretty hard to say, and to remember. Especially because I think out every word I read and type in my head, as if spoken. Anyways, still supporting, on merit of knowledge and helpfulness. --Aescula 00:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    Really? Aescula sounds like the hardest name to read out loud I've ever seen. You can just call me "Mason" if you like. Also, I would hope we aren't opponents. In my opinion we're each getting judged independently and if we're all useful as admins I would hope we'd all become one. Also, thanks. :D Mason11987 (T-C) 00:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    I always pronounced her name "Ayz-cool-ah". Anyhow, I'll happily vote for you once I know just a leetle bit more about ya. Though, again, your name. Eet has too many numbers in eet. --DarthCloakedDwarf 02:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    There's no such thing as an "opponent" in these votes, your RfA stands on entirely its own merits and is either passed or declined based on its own merits. --Briess 09:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    It's "ESS-coo-lah". Just relax as you say it. I was only commenting on if I needed to link to you, "11987" is a seemingly random string of numbers, and thus hard to remember, that's all. And as for the "opponent" bit, Briess, I didn't know if there were limited slots or not. I'll strike that part.--Aescula 10:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    Just for you Aescula Mason (T-C) 11:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    Random string of numbers makes it easy to create account like Mason13373 and pretend to be you. --Nicpon 10:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  2. SUPPORT: You are undoubtedly the best qualified candidate. Your love for the wiki knows no bounds. In fact, it might cross into some sort of weird, taboo area. --Barrel_Roll
  3. SUPPORT: I support this candidate because he seems very serious about this wiki. I would love to see what he could do to improve upon this website. not only does he seem intent on his work, but he seems professional and qualified. I am submitting my support without a doubt that you would make a good admin. --Dissimulation 21:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  4. SUPPORT: You seem to know what you're doing and what the admin tools' purpose should be. I think the wiki will really benefit from your work. --Turgid Bolk 20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  5. SUPPORT: Competent active Wiki user. --MathFox 12:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  6. SUPPORT: I believe you would be a helpful and hardworking addition to the administration team. --Briess 20:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. OPPOSE: Blah blah blah, here's why, signature

[edit] Neutral

  1. NEUTRAL| blah blah blah here's why signature
Personal tools