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. See also [] for a little reasoning of my own.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)

Support

 * 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) - VOTE HERE -

Oppose

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * If you are interested in my response, see above. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)

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)