GuildWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Defiant Elements


 * 1) 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)
 * Alright, well, since I have been explicitly told to answer you here, I think there are a few things I would be able to do given the Admin tools. First of all, I spend a lot of time looking at recent edits (a LOT of time) and reverting vandalism.  Then, I go to Barek's talk page, post there, and more often than not, the user gets banned, etc.  So, the first thing I would say is that by removing the middle man (i.e. not having to go through Barek), I feel that I would be able to help the wiki.  I remember a few nights where I was on (I am on at some weird hours), sitting and checking recent edits and being forced to revert one user's edits at least 10 times because there weren't any admins available.  Obviously, anyone could do that, but I believe I have proven a willingness to go out of my way to do so.  I have also been involved in more than a few instances of conflict resolution and spend a good amount of time instructing users about not violating one policy or another.  To be honest, I like sitting staring at recent changes and just doing random administrative stuff.  Aside from that, I review so many pages so frequently that I believe that I could be a boon in terms of Category:Candidates for deletion by doing frequent purging.  The other large part of what I think I could do given the right tools/authority would be in respect to the build name-space.  As one of the users more involved in the builds section, with the changes being made to the build section (i.e. the nuking of the name-space and the rebuilding) I would like to be able to take a more active role in ensuring that if at all possible, we can have a working name-space for builds.  I can post more later, but this is one long paragraph, so I have written enough for now.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * Thanks for the fast reply. I'm pretty convinced by that, I'll just scroll through your contributions first and then probably move my vote to support you. I've seen your contributions a bit more recently as I've been deleting tagged builds and you've been on most of those talk pages. Coolheaded stuff always which is good. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Alright. In terms of contributions, I think they speak for themselves, so I won't add anything.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * In regards to "being forced to revert one user's edits at least 10 times because there weren't any admins available", that's a violation of GW:1RV, so please don't do it again. As for conflict resolution, I don't see how being a sysop would help you with that? Conflicts are resolved primarily through discussion, and not blocking users. Want to elaborate somewhat more on that one? --Dirigible 03:17, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, the vandalism occurred on ten different pages so I felt justified in reverting each instance... didn't think that was a violation of GW:1RV since it wasn't the same page being vandalized..... well, alright. Aside from that, I was just trying to use conflict resolution as one of the administrative functions I preform, not saying I could necessarily do it better as an Admin.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * I think he meant a case of vandalism, and probably on more than one page, but I'm not sure. (edit conflict) Nothing bad in reverting vandalism. I read DEs talk page archives and scrolled through some of his contribs (yeah, there are a lot of them) and am changing my vote to support now. I think he could do good with the admin tools. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Reread GW:1RV, now I am sure that reverting 10 different instances of vandalism is not a violation of GW:1RV. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)


 * 1) 138.217.165.69 01:31, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * User_talk:Tanaric--Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 01:33, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * And? 138.217.165.69 01:33, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I think Lania may have just been wondering why you tried to disguise your vote as an Anon. Aside from that though, unlike the vetting system for builds, when you are seriously voting against a person, I think I am entitled to some kind of reason.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * Digused? I'm temp banned for a unknown reason. 138.217.165.69
 * You've been banned for 3 days for being a bad boy in the builds section by Tanaric--Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 01:37, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Really? Didn't know that.  Still though, could I at least get some kind of reason?  Also, does anyone find it a little bit surprising that whichever Admin blocked Solus didn't also block his IP address, it seems kind of useless to block one but not the other.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * It's not that easy to "block" an IP. I was banned for... well a reason was never given, but that is not what this is about. I do not think you will be a good admin for wiki, my opinion is my own, and sorry I'm not convinced that you will make a suitable Admin. 138.217.165.69 01:42, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I wasn't looking for an apology, just a reason. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * If you can't understand the text (I sure as hell wasn't apoligizing) how do you expect to deal with arguements as a Admin? 138.217.165.69
 * I was responding to your sarcasm: "sorry I'm not convinced that you will make a suitable Admin." Also, please don't insult my intelligence.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * Anyways, there is no need to be so aggressive, I wasn't trying to spark a conflict, just trying to get more information. If people have good reasons why I shouldn't be an Admin, I would at least like to know them.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * You may be entitled to your opinion but its no use having an opinion without a reason behind it, just makes is seem useless! -- [[Image:Wingsthatheal-icon.jpg]] "Wings" 01:59, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well for starters, I posted my comments in your poll. Second, there was no sarcasm in my words, you take everything personally, which is not my intention. 138.217.165.69 02:02, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Whatever, it isn't worth arguing with you. As I see it, whether or not I am actually confirmed will most likely not hinge on one vote especially when the final decision is made by the current admins, not on the votes alone.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * WOW!, see he just ended an arguement, thats what Admins do. -- [[Image:Wingsthatheal-icon.jpg]] "Wings" 02:04, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * 1) hes an asshole in-game &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.169.49.176 (contribs).
 * Oh come on, calling me an asshole is a blatant violation of GW:NPA. Move to strike vote since user is malicious.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * Wont strike or remove vote. Remember that in the RFA the number of votes doesn't count, it's what the voters say and what the cureaucrates think. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Your response to it, however, doesn't reflect too well on yourself, if I may add. Don't mind the sillies. In my opinion, admins need to be above arguements-- they need to settle it. Perhaps the real reason why Skuld is not longer an admin was because of this as well. Contributions aside, I can see why other admins's adminship have rarely ever been questioned (if ever) in comparison. I am not voting no, don't take this as that, but instead let me suggest you to take a more neutral position... especially on the "vote" for your own position! It's like a writer's critique circle-- you don't explain your own poetry or prose, that's as taboo and disgusting as it gets. A person, especially when his contributions and conduct are all clearly recorded and seen by all, does not need to defend himself from comments such as these, as well as with Solus above. Though Wings believe that you "ended an arguement", I wonder if you could've treated it better, instead of trying to reason, whichm in effect is baiting him as we know by experience now that he doesn't take well to arugments, you could have simply stated that he is, in fact, Solus, asked him to explain, and let that go. It would have acheived the same. Clearly this difference is small, but this is what I thought, and perhaps this is what others would too when they read this... -Silk Weaker 04:26, 19 March 2007 (CDT))
 * 1) - VOTE HERE -


 * Give me a section, I will try to improve it to the best of my ability. And I have a fan club?  Cool.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * This isn't going to get you anywhere if you try and debate every non-favored vote you receive. 138.217.165.69 02:18, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Actually, that was an honest question I posed to Krowman. I wasn't arguing, I would like to know where I could help.  I trust and respect his opinions, and I have no reason to argue with them.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * Being open to other's critque, and willing to ask "how can I help better", is always a good quality. If Krowman has an answer, and D.E. listens, then technically, it will have gotten him somewhere. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jioruji Derako.> 02:23, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Let's sort out the new Build space first. It's a pretty significant change to the wiki, and I know it's your 'area of expertise.' I have nearly culled the 'good' builds from the current Tested section, and will be moving to the Archived ones next, and Auron is working through the Unfavored section. We could both use a hand in the extracting the best of the best builds from these sections, and hanging onto them for the new-and-improved build space. See User:Auron of Neon/Archive effort for our current list, and Post No Builds and No Original Builds to (further) participate in the development and implementation of these policies. This is the part of the wiki you are most familiar with, and for the users who are contemplating your RFA, it can serve as a test and demonstartion of your potential as an admin. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 04:17, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * 1) 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)
 * Alright, so let me start with the Anon situation. First, I would (and this is completely honest not accusatory) know how you would resolve a situation with an anon user who still hasn't responded to my attempt to find out what is going on?  As to banning him/her and removing the vote, yes, in all honesty I probably would have removed the vote.  As to a ban, I probably wouldn't have done anything immediately, seen that it was a first offense and just warned him.  I will admit I was rash, but I think that was more a result of my being a little emotional/excited as a result of the nomination than anything else.  Now, about being active in other sections of the Wiki.  I definitely respect that, and, it is in fact pretty much what I expected at least a few people to say.  And yes, I will not deny that the majority of my edits have taken place in the build namespace.  The only "defense" I can give is this.  Yes, I could spend time fixing grammar or cleaning up other sections, but, as I see it, the section that really needs the most work is the build section.  Yes, maybe I should be more involved in policy, that is perhaps the area in which lacking vast experience is likely to hurt me, but, aside from policy debate, where else could I do the most good.  the build namespace is the point of most contention, it is the hot button issue so to speak.  If I had to estimate, I would say that 90% of all major policy problems (ex. NPA, 1RV, etc.) have in one way or another been related to the build namespace.  The importance of having an Admin who is dedicated to the namespace is something that I think would be a good idea, if not a complete necessity if we ever hope to have anything work.  And, considering that about half of editors who responded to Tanaric's Poll said that we should keep the namespace in some form.  Honestly, which of the current admins is really involved in the build section?  Sure, a lot are involved in Policy debate regarding the build section, and review the violations found in the builds, but how manny work every day to try and improve the quality of the section.  If there was ever a section that needed someone to work to improve it, it is the build section.  And, in terms of policy, while I have not taken as active a hand in shaping policy as I would have liked, I read a good number of proposals, particularly PNB and NOB daily (and sometimes hourly).  However, to close, I certainly respect your views, and, if it becomes apparent that the majority of people share them, well, that is something I can always try to work on.  Some people think I could do some good with an Admin's tools, some people don't think I could.  Either way, whether I become an Admin or not, I will still work to help the wiki.  This is not an attempt to make you change your vote, merely a response.  Hope it answers at least some of your questions.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * All that being said, there is still no need for you to have sysop privileges. And at the moment the Builds namespace is hanging in limbo with the current form obviously not working and no new procedure set up - if admins are needed for the Builds namespace it is not something we would be able to tell now, and the current situation isn't lacking from you not having sysop. You don't have to be a sysop to be involved or to improve any section of the wiki. This is definitely a premature nomination. -  B e X or [[Image:Bexor.png]]  15:49, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * 1) 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)
 * Similar to my response above, I just don't know any other area that needs the help... but, since this is pretty much what I expected, I don't take issue with your comment. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)