Hi everyone, Branebriar1930 here and I am putting myself up for Content Moderator. Tagaziel has endorsed me. Been a patroller since the end of June (so about 3 months) and recently hit 10k edits. I am ready to take it up a notch. If I am completely honest my initial reason for applying was because I feel we have a shortage of cmods at the moment. The more I thought about it however I think that cmod is a good fit for me due to my diligence when it comes to overseeing newer editors, my regular activity, and my general knowledge of the Fallout universe.
Not going to deny the fact that my record has not been spotless, and I have had my share of cringeworthy arguments, yet I feel that I have learnt from them and my interactions with other users has improved dramatically over the past year or so. This has been acknowledged by both Leon and Kate (thank you both). Their respective comments can be found on my page as well.
I am strictly a Fallout content editor. I don't go on the discord or write blogs. My favorite games to edit are 3, 4, and New Vegas. My favorite topics are factions and military conflicts. I am one of the foremost adversaries of speculation, 2nd person terminology, ambiguity, word contraction, and those world-ending, real-world weapon comparisons.....incidentally ALL crimes I have committed myself when I first started editing.
All in all, I hope my actively and interactions with all of you can speak for themselves. If you feel that I'm up for the position then I am grateful for your support, if not, that's alright as well. Thanks everyone. --Branebriar1930 (talk) 11:11, September 23, 2020 (UTC)
|Type of edits||Edit count|
|Fallout Wiki talk||0|
|User blog comment||0|
Based on my interactions with Branebriar, I can wholeheartedly endorse his candidacy for Content Moderator. Not out of any nepotism or favoritism, but because he has demonstrated good judgment in his editing and when he finds himself at odds with another editor - myself included - then he aims to find a consensus, rather than compromise or treat it as a competition. Wholeheartedly endorsed. Tagaziel (call!)
- ExplorerSmaily (talk) 12:02, September 23, 2020 (UTC) Me too against weapon comparisons and all this crimes) --
- Saxhleel12 (talk) 12:45, September 23, 2020 (UTC) I was recently told by an old user that because of developments with speculation/theories/fanon on Nukapedia pages they no longer considered the wiki "a lore reliable source anymore". That is a beyond disappointing thing to hear about a community that's supposed to be dedicated to sharing information. So you running with anti-speculation as one of your platforms? You got my vote in a heartbeat.
- kdarrow take her for a spin! 13:49, September 23, 2020 (UTC) I enthusiastically support Branebriar for the role of content moderator. He is a consistent patroller that I have come to rely on daily for managing significant number of recent changes. Branebriar's knowledge base and editing skills are excellent, and I am confident that providing him with additional tools will only benefit the wiki overall. Solid yes. -
- Tagaziel (call!) 14:05, September 23, 2020 (UTC) Obviously. :)
- |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 17:06, September 23, 2020 (UTC) But of course.
- 寧靜 22:29, September 23, 2020 (UTC) If you were running for any of the other rights positions, I'd be voting no. With that being said, I think Content Moderator is the perfect fit for you, and I support you gaining those tools so long as you use them responsibly.
- Jinau (talk) 00:10, September 24, 2020 (UTC) Yes, I saw the applicant's edits.
- Devastating DaveZIP ZAP RAP 01:50, September 24, 2020 (UTC) Nothing but improvement on his editing while he's been here, I see no reason that this is a logical next step for him to improve.
- Spikezarkspike (talk) 18:04, September 24, 2020 (UTC) Very happy to support this. Branebriar is curteous, helpful, reasonable, willing to listen, willing to explain, enthusiastic and very hard working.
- AllYourFavorites! (talk) 19:05, September 24, 2020 (UTC) I was initially leaning towards a neutral vote but Brane gave a very reasonable and sensible response to the questions posed below. I think Brane has shown marked improvement since he started editing, both in terms of content and user engagement. I understand other users' concerns but this specific role especially would be well-suited for him.
- DankalorYT 15:08, September 23, 2020 (UTC) Qualified, maybe. Capable, maybe. But I've noticed a lot of gung ho editing and user interaction throughout your time here, even as a patroller, and I don't think that's the kind of user I'd like to see be able to delete stuff.--
- LovinglyGaslight (talk) 16:05, September 23, 2020 (UTC)
- The thing is, I would've (or might've) voted neutral/ going to yes if only you had gotten an admin to deescalate the problems relating to the edit-war situation than playing fire with fire. --Cassie The Rodio Girl I see you.。✿ 17:59, September 23, 2020 (UTC) Dank pretty much took the words out of my mouth.
- Jgrsoto 01:14, September 24, 2020 (UTC) You did not state what would you do with content moderator tools. you only said that you "were ready to take it up a notch." Rights are not cookies that we give out as a price for good work. Aditionaly, I agree with Dank completely.
- make edits without leaving summaries requiring other editors to check the articles to see what you change. I do not believe that you are suitable to be a content mod without improvement.--Todoedits (talk) 10:03, September 24, 2020 (UTC) Echoing the above you have the capability to perform this role but you have frequently been involved in edit wars, separate yourself from the community, and
- CamelChip (talk) 16:26, September 24, 2020 (UTC) As stated above, you're a good editor, but could use some improvement in your diplomacy & leaving meaningful edit summaries. With your extensive history of deleting valuable content (due to misinterpreting its contribution to the article), I can't say I'd support you being able to delete articles themselves.
- Findabair (talk) 15:22, September 23, 2020 (UTC) Since we had no interactions thus far, I will stay neutral on your request. Good luck with the vote nonetheless. -
- The Dyre Wolf (talk) 16:03, September 23, 2020 (UTC) Discord is a cruel mistress, and without a voice of his own there to see how Brane handles interactions, most of what I have to go on are one sided complaints against him in Editorial. Hardly fair, but that’s the reputation I am familiar with. His recent talk page and staff in his favor definitely paint a different picture, but not one clear enough to vote in favor.
- Tribal Wisdom Tawlk ta me! 22:39, September 23, 2020 (UTC) I like Brane's eagerness and attention to detail, there's a definite desire to make sure things are correct and decent quality, my only qualm would be a slight heavy handedness with less experienced/new editors, from what I've had to go on. I don't doubt this can be worked on, but for now I'll remain nuetral. --
- Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 00:24, September 24, 2020 (UTC) Dyre pretty much sums up my reasoning. I don't really look at your edits since, as patrollers, we don't tend to patrol the work of other patrollers. You do have a lot of edits and I know you from reputation as a good editor, but I have also heard complaints about your behavior here and I've seen some talk page messages you've left for other people that seem particularly inflammatory. That is why I cannot fully support your bid for content moderator. -
- Nonstopmaximum (talk) 10:27, September 27, 2020 (UTC) I have noticed you remove corrections and other beneficial edits for misguided reasons or without looking into them properly. With a little more attention to detail I think you may be ready in the future. --
- User:Makeineer I may be new to the forum, but based on the information, I could agree here.
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawglover22 (talk • contribs) 18:22, September 23, 2020. Please sign your posts with ~~~~! I 100% agree, I also love Fallout NV, 3, and 4, and would love to hear more from your editing! I hope to see you as a mod soon!
With the extra permissions from the content moderator position, I am not sure what you would seek from the enhanced permissions that you don’t currently have access to as a patroller. I did not see this stated in your application? Great Mara (talk) 14:13, September 23, 2020 (UTC)
Content Moderator toolsEdit
I went ahead and voted yes, but I do still have a couple of rhetorical questions for you:
- Do you know what protecting an article means, and when it's applicable?
- Ditto for deleting articles
These are questions to keep in mind, as there's a lot of responsibility that goes into protecting or even outright deleting an article, and it's a responsibility that you're going to need to be able to put thought into, as we will notice when these actions are performed. In any case, good luck with your request, and I'll be looking forward to seeing what you can potentially do with the extra tools. 寧靜 22:34, September 23, 2020 (UTC)
To answer these questions: I know that protecting articles means locking them down for a certain period of time to stop disruptive editing. When it comes to protecting said articles, I would say the most important times to do so would be to stop a repetitive a vandal or an edit war. From experience (Marcy long incident) I was stuck reverting vandalism (which looked like an edit war to boot) while waiting for a CMOD or admin to get involved. The entire incident could have (and should have) been stopped much sooner than it did and I wished I could have done more than simply reverting their vandalism over and over while trying to talk it out. I know personally how disruptive edit-warring can be. In the past I would always revert something BEFORE messaging them, I simply don't do that any more, at least not without providing an edit summery. I always try to talk to them first (if my edit summery was not accepted) and/or ask and admin or bureaucrat.
When it comes to deleting articles, I have never had any desire to get rid of entire pages. The only times I have ever 'removed' pages was blanking troll articles (didn't know what else to do). I understand some of you have voted no on the grounds that since I have gotten rid of large amounts of content on certain pages, I cannot be trusted with the power to delete them. You must know that those incidents are few and far between and it is a bit of a slippery-slope argument to assume that I wish to remove entire pages. That being said, I do understand where you are coming from, whenever we see those subtraction numbers in bold red in edit history, it always sets off some alarm bells. --Branebriar1930 (talk) 17:43, September 24, 2020 (UTC)
I have not been very active lately, but see others compliment you for your diligent editing. As a content moderator you will also be tasked with resolving and preventing disputes, however. Do you have any recent examples of you discussing or defusing situations that you are particularly proud of? For me, your skill in handling such situations is the most important aspect of your application. - FDekker (talk) 13:08, September 24, 2020 (UTC)
I cannot say that I have every been a third party to another argument (to my most recent knowledge). A while ago I did my best to defuse an argument I was having with JCB regarding little lamplight and another I was having with dank regarding chronological vs biological ages for NPCs. I have been more active on talkpages however, providing what little contributions to one debate or another.--Branebriar1930 (talk) 17:43, September 24, 2020 (UTC)
More a general comment but why aren't edit summaries part of the criteria for positions? It seems like a major aspect of wiki contribution which isn't really enforced on here.--Todoedits (talk) 11:36, September 25, 2020 (UTC)
Edit summaries are 'obligatory' for big changes and useful for the sake of other editors, but at the end of the day they are not a rule. There are times when edit summaries simply are not that necessary. For example if one made 300 small edits on 300 different pages, its not realistic to expect 300 individual summaries. Another thing i have found is that simply as editors becomes more and more experienced, (or only focus on very specific aspects of editing) you trust them more and more that you do not need to check their every change. I too have been frustrated when I've seen people make changes that really did warrant an explanation, but I've also come to trust that many of my fellow editors know what they are doing and if I really want to see their changes, its just one extra click. For those people, about 95% of the time after viewing their changes I know why they did them. Just my take however, as I know this was more of a general comment.--Branebriar1930 (talk) 13:15, September 25, 2020 (UTC)
Edit summaries are actually part of our user conduct guidelines. It's recommended to use them as often as possible since they quickly inform users about the types of changes made. Explaining your edits is a quick, easy way to keep everyone on the same page; no need for a dissertation! Obviously, larger, more drastic edits should include an edit summary, but even small or minor edits can benefit from having one. For example, a summary for fixing the DR of an armor could be as simple as "Fixed incorrect DR value." Edit summaries can explain what you changed and give insight as to why you made the change. They're good practice to have and part of our guidelines because clear communication is key! CamelChip (talk) 19:06, September 26, 2020 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I said (or meant). It is helpful for other editors and generally a good habit. But its also simply unreasonable to expect people to do them for every edit, that's why its recommended and not a rule. --Branebriar1930 (talk) 20:14, September 26, 2020 (UTC)
If you have time to edit you have time to leave a summary I feel, the lax attudide to it isn't really conductive to other users, whilst they can check that's making extra work for others without being accountable to other people. Being an active editor shouldn't preclude you from it as Camel says, especially if you're making a lot of edits--Todoedits (talk) 20:53, September 26, 2020 (UTC) What
What people have time for is kind of an irrelevant factor. Regardless of how we all feel, We can't punish editors for NOT doing something (however annoying it may be) when they don't even have to contribute in the first place. If some random passerby skims over a wiki and notices a tiny spelling error that requires a single change, such as changing something to a capital letter, that random passerby probably won't be interested in putting more effort into an edit summery than they did into their actual edit. You can call that lazy if you want but that's simply the extent of their interest, and why trying to enforce edit summaries is pretty futile. At the end of the day, every editor will edit however much or little they like, those that choose to provide an edit summery are simply being extra considerate.--Branebriar1930 (talk) 22:24, September 26, 2020 (UTC)
We're going to give you the content moderator right. Do take the no votes to heart though, there's still some work on your interaction skills and watch the edit summaries. Though I personally feel you've made good progress there and am fairly convinced it will only improve from now on. Congratulations! Jspoel 11:24, October 3, 2020 (UTC)