GuildWiki:Requests for adminship/Defiant Elements

Defiant Elements (talk &bull; contribs)
He has been very active on the builds section on the wiki, and handled discussions and many conflicts within the section with a cool hand. With the upcoming shakeup to the builds section I feel that we need someone that is very active that can help oversee the changes that happens to the builds section and not miss anything important. He has gained quite a favorable reputation for himself as a build guru among many guildwiki users and many people trust the decisions he makes. He is always helpful in cleaning up many builds and their talk pages. In addition he asserts himself when needed and enforce the current policies whenever a new user breaks policy. I believe he will make a great admin and will be a valuable asset in helping the transition to a new builds space. --Lania Elderfire 01:26, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I accept the nomination. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * Who doesnt >< --[[User:Sigm@|Sig mA

]] 12:29, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Check the database of old nominations, a lot of them didn't accept for one reason or another. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:42, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Support
(Nominator) - Lania Elderfire
 * 1) –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 01:40, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Defiant Elements would be a awesome Admin, he is always on and always helping out. -- [[Image:Wingsthatheal-icon.jpg]] "Wings" 01:52, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) He's always been quick to try and settle some of the many disputes that arise in the builds section, and it's not to hard to find an article on guildwiki that D.E. hasn't helped out on, at least a little bit. A few more buttons and I'm sure he would prove to be a helpful and friendly admin, at the very least. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jioruji Derako.>  02:06, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) He is both helpful and creative, coming up with build suggestions that make many builds very successful. Constantly improving the builds on the wiki, I support his nomination. Way to go Defy! :D Readem 02:27, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) I'm still getting to know Defiant (scrolling through contributions). I would like to hear some reasons for the nomination. What good would you do for the wiki with the admin tools that you couldn't do without them? That's the main question, but feel free to convince me in any manner you like (yes, I want you to answer me here ;) ). --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) So hard to read this thing with so much text x.x. I think Definant Would make a good admin, his comments are honest in their opinions (even if I don't agree with them) and haven't done anything but be helpful to the wiki --Dazra 03:48, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 7) - Leader Rat [[Image:Rat.jpg|19px]] 14:25, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 8) Conditional Support. I've seen some of Defiant's contributions within the Builds section itself, and the only thing I have in favour of his nomination is that a somewhat experienced admin is needed in this section. However, I've yet to see many contributions by Defiant outside of the section already. I am also concerned that he may be too lenient with many "newbie" builds in the PvP subsection, and haven't seen any demonstration of extensive knowledge of the PvP metagame. But if he would prove to be benefitial to the entire wiki (rather than BuildWiki), it is a definate favoured vote from me. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 15:18, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 9) --Cheese Slaya 19:21, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 10) What Rapta said.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.JPG]] 20:05, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 11) Badbybirth 07:33, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 12) I support Defiant Elements, becausealthough he hasn't been here long, he has contributed a lot, and i support him. [[image:Barrage.jpg|20px]] Waterbotle5
 * 13) he's awesome--&#39;,..,&#39; Zamanee 17:10, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 14) --75.45.204.214 18:13, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 15) user:Flamer Lamer I support, seen him helping alot and very active on the build sections.
 * 16) Builds section needs an admin. --24.17.236.162 16:40, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
 * There isn't going to be a builds section soon, and an admin can't designate it as the only place they will be working. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 16:43, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Just ran into this now. Sure. I've said it before and say it again, an administrator must be capable of using his tools (i.e. have the time, skill and willingness to help edit the Wiki) and not abuse his power (be able to make sound and fair judgements, avoid overstepping and overreacting, knowing when to separate his opinions from "policy", etc.). I'm not so sure on the second part, because, frankly, there is only one way of finding out, and that is giving him a chance. NightAngel 17:00, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Very helpful and entertaining person--Lokre 21:24, 24 March 2007 (CDT)

Oppose
]] 15:20, 19 March 2007 (CDT) ]] 15:23, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) 138.217.165.69 01:31, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) hes an asshole in-game &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.169.49.176 (contribs).
 * 3) Oppose. It seems very premature to me. I'd like to see Defiant more active in other parts of the wiki in addition to the Builds section, as right now his contributions to the wiki seem very narrow in focus. Also not too enthusiastic about his reaction to the vote from the anonymous user above; immediately asking a sysop to ban him and delete the vote is far from being "conflict resolution" or "attempting to diffuse situations". I'm guessing if you were a sysop, Defiant, you'd have banned him and removed the vote already, correct? Last, but not least, I honestly fail to see how sysop tools would aid your contributions to the wiki. You don't need to be a sysop to revert vandalism, you don't need to be a sysop to mediate in conflicts and try to resolve issues peacefully, you don't need to be a sysop to flag vandals or questionable articles for admin review. Both categories of candidates for banning and deletion seem perfectly stable and under control to me, so not quite sure how much of a boon you'd be there either. For these reasons I oppose the nomination for adminship. Maybe in the future, once (and if) you've had more experience with the wiki as a whole, and there's something more concrete that your adminship would bring to the wiki, I'd be glad to reconsider my vote. Until that time, there's other users who in my book have made a huge difference around here as regular editors, and would make an even greater difference as admins (Auron, Gordon, Bexor being some of the names that immediately pop to mind). Good luck. --Dirigible 07:35, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) Dirig makes very good points that I tend to agree with there. I think this is a bit premature. -  B e X or [[Image:Bexor.png]]  11:38, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) Somewhat similar to Dirigible, I oppose hinging on his sole area of editing being builds. He's made a grand total of four edits to the main namespace that aren't reversions.  It goes up to 15 if you include those.  Counting every edit minus edits to the build namespaces, user namespaces, this page, the build S&F and talk, the post no builds talk, and the no original builds talk, he's got a grand total of 38 edits.  He's been editing with his account since October, so it's a pretty good indication builds are his only area of interest.  --Fyren 14:53, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) Lack of experience on Gwwiki, I vote for Gordon Ecker! --[[User:Sigm@|Sig mA
 * I rarely see Defiant Elements contributing other things then voting on builds. I don't see why Defiant is nominated for adminship.. --[[User:Sigm@|Sig mA
 * 1) I appreciate your work in the Build section; however; I'd agree the builds section is pretty much what you work on, and you should work on other things as well, especially when many people don't even like the idea of a Builds section on GuildWiki. -- Nova  [[Image:NovaSmall.PNG]] --  (contribs) 18:20, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) I agree with Dirig. I've only been part of the wiki from a couple of days now, but I've been editing builds alot recently and I always check the talk pages. You aren't always the nicest person there The Imperialist 18:37, 19 March 2007 (CDT);-)
 * 3) I'm sorry Defiant, but I don't feel that you are ready yet. See Fyren's statistics for example. Like Dirigible says, you don't need sysop tools to do what you're doing, and having them won't significantly improve the quality of your work either. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 19:31, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) Doesnt need the admin tools, dont really think he would be a good one. No thanks, sorry. &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 19:47, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) Too early, not enough participation in the mainspace by a longshot. Tools not needed, especially if his focus remains on builds and we change the builds policy for the better to eliminate problems there. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 03:27, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 6)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:26, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 7) &mdash; Skuld 16:09, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 8) Sigma's reasons. &mdash; Nightshadow  [[image:Aura_of_the_Lich.jpg|19px]] 16:15, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 9) - [[Image:Branek-Sig.gif]] Branek  [[Image:Branek-Sig.gif]]   05:32, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Neutral

 * 1) Clearly an intelligent person and experienced player. I would rather his talents be applied to improving various sections of the wiki rather than mediating petty conflicts amongst users. However, I won't let my opinions stand in the way of his (and his fan club's!) wishes. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 02:08, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Might make a good Admin, but not enough non-build contributions to know yet. --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]   16:18, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) I check on DE's page everyday and its true, he lives on the wiki. DE's great at builds but I dont know....no offense, but it's like you really want it bad. Like too bad, so bad that I can't vote yes. (which may be the immaturity factor)--&mdash; Hyprodimus Prime  [[Image:hyprodimusprimewikisig.png||talk]] 03:55, 24 March 2007 (CDT)