GuildWiki:Requests for adminship/Defiant Elements

Defiant Elements (talk • 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 [[1]] for a little reasoning of my own. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)

Support

1. –Ichigo724 01:40, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
2. Defiant Elements would be a awesome Admin, he is always on and always helping out. -- "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. -- 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 ;) ). -- (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 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. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 15:18, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
9. (your vote here)

Oppose

1. 138.217.165.69 01:31, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
2. hes an asshole in-game —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. - BeXor 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. (your vote here)

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. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 02:08, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
2. (your vote here)