Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Sactage (4)

I'd like to nominate Sactage for bureaucrat, because I think that with Modern Warfare 3 not too far around the corner, we could do with another bureaucrat, and I believe Sactage to be the best choice.

We could do with another bureaucrat because at the moment, there are only 2 active bureaucrats, with Bovell and Chiafriend12 being at semi-activity, and Azuris being at around three-fifths-activity. Also, we will be getting a lot of traffic, so it's probably best to have another active bureaucrat on the team.

I think Sactage is the best choice because he shows consistently helpful and appropriate behaviour, and conversely, he doesn't overburden people with rules and regulations. In short - he has a character which is fit for a bureaucrat. He's also very active even during school, which is a useful bonus.

Consider your votes carefully, remember that there aren't as many active bureaucrats as it may seem. Thanks! 22:19, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

P.S. he didn't ask anyone this time. I did this completely out of my own accord. 22:19, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Callofduty4 for nominating me for bureaucrat, and I accept his nomination with gratitude. 22:35, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As nominator.  22:19, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Nom   RC  ™   22:21, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  22:21, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Per (omnom)nom. Sunglasses Hitler.pngSenior Sammich  Need help? Deal-with-it-Shepard.jpg  22:22, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  -- Not a valid reason to support.  23:29, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't "Why the hell not" valid? The rest is useless in terms of consensus, but the first sentence is valid I think. 06:19, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Sure, Sactage is a very good user, and the wiki would greatly benefit from him becoming a bureaucrat.  --23:09, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) 20PX_SIG.gif  Talk  06:15, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  06:33, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  07:35, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  19:26, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Smuffs comment in the oppose section. :/  19:36, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  07:35, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  19:26, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Smuffs comment in the oppose section. :/  19:36, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Smuffs comment in the oppose section. :/  19:36, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  Ireland_flag.gif  CoaZ Talk
 * He does a lot behind the scenes, you just don't see it because you never go on IRC. 19:35, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

04:11, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  I don't see the need for another crat atm but my view may change.  19:34, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  22:50, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd assume COD:R would be opened back up to requests closer to the release of Modern Warfare 3, and notice that is a point Callofduty4 brings up in the nomination. Also, what Callofduty4 said in that quoted statement was over one month ago, things have changed since then. 23:13, September 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Two active 'crats should be ample for the wiki, for the following reasons:
 * I'm aware of COD:NOT, but I just want to use an example here. On the Grand Theft Wiki, they have nearly 47,000 pages, with nearly 7,000 articles. Do you know how many 'crats the GTW community have overseeing all that? Answer: just one. If a wiki as large as GTW can get by with one 'crat, we should be able to get by with two.
 * I don't see why 'crats are so "omgz mega important" anyway. They're admins who can make other users admins. That's it.

For the above reasons, I firmly Oppose this RfB. Sgt. S.S. 19:26, September 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're argument is stupid. The amount of pages has nothing to do with it; it's the amount of traffic which determines what tools are needed. We're the fourth most active wiki on wikia, we're allowed our luxuries. We may only need one 'crat, but who's to say we can't have more? Furthermore, if you don't view these tools as important then why the hell are you opposing? 19:32, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Your* :3
 * It is not you are argument, so it must be your... 19:43, September 13, 2011 (UTC)