Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Defiant Elements/Archive 1

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Info-Logo.png Note: This RFA has been resolved. Please do not add further support/oppose opinions.

Defiant Elements[edit]

This request is for the sysophood of User:Defiant Elements (talk • contribs).
Created by User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

Status[edit]

Failed. 00:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidate statement[edit]

Meaning no offense to the current Admin team, I've noticed lately that the Admin team seems to lack someone willing to bash a few skulls together (particularly when it comes to "keeping the peace" so to speak). I'm not terribly blunt myself (by which I mean that unless I'm very much annoyed -- which rarely happens -- I'm not blunt at all), but nonetheless, I think I'm more willing to go out on a ledge and take action that I firmly believe is correct than some of the other Admins may be (and yes, wiki-lawyering/semantics aside, the current Admin policy does allow for discretion).

So that's that... but I can foresee some issues people are going to have with this RfA, so I'm gonna try to get ahead of the mayhem that is sure to ensue by answering some of those questions. First and foremost, unlike my past self-nominations for Bureaucrat-ship, I don't have no axe to grind, i.e. I'm not rabble-rousing. The second question that people are (I'm sure) going to raise relates to my lack of contributions. And yeah, I have not been terribly active outside of the GWW and GWW Talk namespaces, I'm fully willing to admit that, but, as far as things like say... monotonously deletions, etc. well, much as I hate to do so, I'm gonna have to use PvX to back me up when I say that aside from all those controversial decisions I'm sure to be making (jk) I am in fact willing to engage in more janitorial tasks a la this (and note that I've not been very involved in the actual build vetting/build creation on PvX for quite some time now). And then there's the question about the longevity of my contributions (which, for convenience sake, I'll estimate began in earnest on December 10th of this previous year). Not that that time span in of itself necessarily means anything, but it does raise the question of whether I can (or should) be trusted with sysop privileges. Speaking for myself (and yes, I realize I'm biased) I'm inclined to say that I'm reasonable level-headed and mature, and I obviously have some degree of experience being an Admin on a wiki. But does that mean I understand what it means to be an Admin on this Wiki? Do people want (or believe that GWW needs) someone who is (yes) willing to shoot first, ask question later, metaphorically speaking? That is, in my opinion, the issue that should be at the center of this RfA, and it's one that I'm am ill-equipped to answer, instead, that question needs to be answered by the voters.

On a somewhat serious, somewhat amusing note, I also have some limited ability to reign in malignant PvXers, which is clearly an important thing to consider.

That said, I've (finally) run out of things to say, but I'm happy to answer any questions people may have. Cheers!

Support[edit]

  1. Support. Sometimes you have to crack skulls to get results, can I can't think of a better candidate for cracking skulls than DE. He is stern but fair, even if he isn't it's not like you're going to tell anyone, he'd ban your ass faster than Tanetris eating at all you can eat buffet. -- scourge 23:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support - (no offense admins, u know I luv ya) I actually was discussing the admins softness towards vandals and violaters today. If you are going to take more action then yes, yes, yes, yes, yes (I would keep going but you get the point). However, your out look on banning people for posting on the admin noticeboard I do not agree with. --Shadowphoenix User-Shadowphoenix Shadow Phoenix Signet.jpg 00:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support - Is truly awesome. Will defiantly be of help to gww, By which i mean, i take what he says seriously.--Shadowsin 23:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. I like his reasoning and I trust him to make good choises. Combine that with the selective "shoot first, ponder later" behavior and we've got a winner. — Galil Talk page 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support. For the same reasons I supported Auron. (Just get rid of the walls of text and parantheses and it's perfect ;) ) - anja talk 00:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. By IRCabal (Weak) Support. (I like icons!) I think DE would make an interesting and good addition to the sysop team. When you now get more active on GWW in future, I think I can even remove the "(Weak)" in front of this ;) (and sorry for the mess, I had to do this :P) poke | talk 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support. Despite conspiring against the IRCabal and interfering with the Cabal's master scheme of a new wiki order, he is very...eloquent, manages to stay level-headed in all situations, and has his priorities in line (bickering after content and before random user projects). Damn you, Poke, you EC'ed me. Calor Talk 00:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Shooting first, asking questions later doesn't mean banning before thinking. Don't confuse the two, folks. -Auron 16:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support. It's nice to have a variety of admins, and while I believe that the 'shoot first, question later' style of management can be potentially dangerous, given how much Defiant Elements seems to care about the wiki, I don't see him doing so and I'd like to give him a chance. Kokuou 23:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support. Good replacement for me. —Tanaric 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support. Has shown everything an admin needs imo. We'll see how everyone gets along and if it's a terrible mess we can still fix it ;) (/echo Galil) - Y0_ich_halt Have a look at my page 16:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support Has the experience and level-mindedness to utilize sysop tools for the good of the wiki. -- AT(talk | contribs) 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. Meteor Showwwwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 72.199.26.35 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support Shadowphoenix's reason. --Dominator Matrix 23:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support Imo, we definitely need a more aggressive sysop around. No offense to the current ones, I just feel he would make a good addition to the team. -- Mini Me talk 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support DE's been a bureaucrat on PvX since the beginning (and on PvX, bureaucrats are basically just sysops who can promote people) and he's done an excellent job. I can say from personal experience that the vast majority of his decisions are carefully thought out. Anyone as level-headed, responsible and experienced as DE would make an excellent addition to the admin team. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support Communism is a system of government that is much deeper in real life, people can't really be poor on wikis. I don't think this user seems communist though, and can handle the job. Invincible Rogue 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Fuck yeah! — Skakid 00:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support As made evident by the below votes, most have to resort to blatant logical fallacies to oppose him. Lord Belar 00:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose. --riceball User Riceball Sig.JPG 23:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose He would get in the way of my trolling. Private Grinchsucks 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Despite what DE claims, we have plenty of competent SysOps. We also have too much edrama as it is, without actiuvly inviting more. Backsword 08:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. No --Cursed Angel talk 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Opposing another possible admin for the same reason as the last, (even though they got accepted): If they should be admin, so should I.- VanguardUser-VanguardAvatar.PNG 22:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. — ク Eloc 貢 23:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. A vote for DE is a vote for communism...you're not communist, are you? Prophet Ascension 23:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Im No Fgt Communist! --Disrupt Shot! 01:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. While I appreciate your answers and don't fear ruin if you were approved, I'm happy with the current sysops and their methods; I don't think the criticisms upon which your run is predicated are all that justified. Plus, I'm not a commie, and you seem shady. - THARKUN User Tharkun sig.png 03:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Basically the same reasoning as Tharkun, just without the commie references as im European and we dont mind being labeled a commie. -- Salome User salome sig.png 23:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Per Riceball's points on the talk page. Also, as Xeeron and others said, I don't believe the wiki needs a sysop of the kind DE suggests he would be, and even if it did need one, it shouldn't be him. --Dirigible 10:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Per Riceballs points...Dominator Matrix 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

  1. My reasoning. --User Brains12 Spiral.png Brains12 \ Talk 17:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. I'd say same problem as with Antioch. I have no idea what you have done, so I can't really have an opinion. I have never seen what you have done, so maybe you should go around and "be seen", but I can't put this on oppose because of that cause it could be me who is just not active enough to see you. - talk helena 07:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. From all I have seen, Defiant Elements has the material to make a good sysop. However he is not simply proposing himself as a sysop like any other, but gives the need of a "shoot first, ask questions later" sysop for his promotion. I do not think such a sysop is needed nor helpful for the wiki. Furthermore, if I ever thought such a sysop was needed, Defiant Elements would not be my first choice for the position. --Xeeron 11:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Because sockpuppets are not cool. --LemmingUser Lemming64 sigicon.png 22:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. I fully trust DE with sysop tools, but I do not support the appointment. I don't feel like opposing either. I feel that if there is a need for a sysop who's willing to "shoot first, ask questions later", I would rather one of the current sysops step up to fill the role, or another user who has a stronger presence on this wiki. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. I do not know enough about this user to either oppose or support, but I have to agree with what Xeeron said (excluding the first sentence) --Kakarot Talk 00:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki:Requests_for_adminship/Defiant_Elements/Archive_1&oldid=2661017"