Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship

For another page abbreviated as "COD:RFA", see Call of Duty Wiki:Requested Featured Articles.

For the page for admin task requests, see Call of Duty Wiki:Administrator Requests.

The Requests for Adminship page (often abbreviated as RfAs or NfAs depending on the nominator) is used to nominate users for a position on the administrative team, either sysop or bureaucrat (Requests for Bureaucrat flags are known as RfBs), users (as the name implies) may request the flags, or self-nominate. New administrators are often needed as the community at the Call of Duty Wiki expands. They also may be needed to take the place of formerly active administrators who no longer contribute to the wiki.

Requests are generally closed and have a consensus determined two weeks after the nomination. However, if the nominator or nominee chooses to withdraw the nomination or the nominee declines, or the nomination is very poorly written (or there is none) it may be closed immediately.

Requirements for adminship
To qualify to be an administrator, you must meet this minimum set of requirements: Note that this is a minimum requirement; for higher chances of success the user should be well known, have a good track record at undoing vandalism, should have a decent amount of mainspace edits and contribution to community discussions, and should not just be coming out a ban. Also, the nomination should state why the nominee would need the administrator tools.
 * Have a record of civil and mature behavior
 * Have contributed to the wiki
 * Be active

Regulations for voting

 * Keep your cool. RfAs have been known to host some nasty flame wars. If another user disagrees with you and gives you trouble, just keep your cool and don't fight back. That may sound "cowardly", but if you fight back, you could receive a block, and/or make the flame war escalate.
 * Unregistered users can't vote. To be able to vote, you must have an account to do so. This is to avoid sockpuppetry. However, anyone can still comment.
 * Be descriptive. Though you don't have to, it's a lot easier for a discussion if you say why you're voting what you're voting. If you just say ", you're not really saying why the candidate should be an admin, and your vote may be excluded and struckthrough . It's not just for supports, but for all votes.
 * No Self-Support. Nominators may only support the nominee if they are not one-in-the-same.

Glossary of vote titles
Not just the standard "Support" and "Oppose"s are used in RfAs. This subsection lists most vote types.
 * Support - A positive vote.
 * Strong Support - A very positive vote.
 * Extremely Strong Support - An extremely positive vote.
 * Weak Support - A positive vote, but the voter has not ruled out oppose.
 * Neutral - A vote saying that the voter is unsure about the nominee/between supporting and opposing.
 * Neutral leaning towards Support - A neutral vote, but closer to support than oppose.
 * Neutral leaning towards Oppose - A neutral vote, but closer to oppose than support.
 * Oppose - A negative vote.
 * Strong Oppose - A very negative vote.
 * Weak Oppose - A negative vote, but the voter has not ruled out support.
 * Not yet - A negative vote saying the nominee would not be fit for the role at the current moment, but most likely later.
 * Comment - A comment.
 * : - a comment made in response to another comment can simply be indented.
 * Question - A sort of comment that asks a question. (Ex. What would you do with your tools?)

There are associated templates to go with most of the vote types above when voting:


 * Support creates
 * Strong Support creates
 * Extremely Strong Support creates
 * Weak Support creates
 * Neutral creates
 * Neutral towards Support creates
 * Neutral towards Oppose creates
 * Oppose creates
 * Strong Oppose creates
 * Weak Oppose creates
 * Not Yet creates Not yet
 * Comment creates
 * Question creates

Nominations
break=no prefix=Project:Requests for Adminship/ preload=Template:RfA buttonlabel=Nominate a user