D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Lord Dhazriel2

Lord Dhazriel

Failed.

Voice your opinion (2/2/0) 50% Approval; Ended 23:00, 10 January 2010 (MST)

I am re-nominating Lord Dhazriel for adminship since he has willfully disregarded D&D Wiki's deletion policies many times over (more exactly ). As can be evidenced on the policy page on Category:Candidates for Deletion it has no correlation to Wikipedia's deletion policies and Lord Dhazriel drew a correlation where none is on a number of pages. --Green Dragon 05:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidates Prelude

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve D&D Wiki in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list on Wikipedia before answering.

A:

2. Of your articles or contributions to D&D Wiki, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A:

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A:

Discussion

Support

Lord Dhazriel has obviously done quite a bit which was frowned on, as you noted above. But, perhaps rather than removal of his powers, a 'knock 'round the noggin', might prove more effective in the long term. He's never seemed like a person with a bad intentions, I've talked to him quite a few times. But stern retribution would perhaps be delivered more efficiently in a different approach. --SgtLion 15:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

He abused his adminship powers. Not only is it right to remove his powers however I also feel that dismantling his adminship powers will effectively give him a "knock round the noggin" and if he ever makes up for his mistake in some way he can always be re-nominated. --Green Dragon 19:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I support Dhazriel's continuation as an admin, though with a warning if there was any fault. In the time I have known him, he has been quite good on most if not all fronts, and I cannot fault his intentions, as was said earlier. All it will probably take is a good talk, not a drastic measure like this. --Aristocles 09:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

As stated above. --Green Dragon 05:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose on the grounds mostly that LD is no longer interested in this site, so it is not beneficial to himself or the site to continue the administrative relationship. All luck in future endeavors, however, and thanks for time served. Hooper talk contribs email 13:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

gollark: "AI" is so uselessly general as to be useless and general.

gollark: How does it do comparisons, then?

gollark: Neat.

gollark: You should probably use <#738494669775700018> instead of <#426116061415342080> now that that exists.

gollark: Hmm, arguably that would make more sense.

This article is issued from Dandwiki. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.