Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship

Give a good reason and request for adminship in the bottom subsection if you wish to become an administrator, or bureaucrat.

Requirements for adminship
To qualify to be an administrator, you must meet a set of requirements.

You must
 * Have been here for at least a month.
 * Have edited at least a thousand times.
 * Be civil.
 * Have no record of serious offenses (E.g. vandalism, personal attacks).
 * Be known and trusted by others.

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.
 * New users can't vote. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Someone can easily make a bunch of dummy accounts, all vote for their friend to be an admin, and unfairly turn the tide of the vote. For this reason, new users cannot vote for the possibility of being a sockpuppet. Anyone trying to use sockpuppets will be blocked.
 * 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 "Support - --Example 06:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)", you're not really saying why the candidate should be an admin, and your vote may be excluded and strikethrough ed. It's not just for supports, but for all votes.

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.
 * Weak Support - A positive vote, but the voter is bound to change their vote.
 * 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.
 * Pending - Vote not yet decided.


 * Comment - A comment.
 * Not yet - A negative vote saying that the nominee has not been around long enough, but would be admin material if they had been around for a longer time.
 * Question - A sort of comment that asks a question. (Ex. What would you do with your tools?)

Requests
If you feel you are up to the job, make a subsection for your request, and the community will discuss it.

Cod1 (5)
Hi it's me Cod1. I think that I'm ready to be an admin. I've been a user on this wiki since January 31st, 2009, I'm a kind and mature user, I've done many helpful edits, and I know I haven't been very active lately but I promise that I will try to be as active as I can. So everyone, what do you think? -- 19:50, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I have nothing to say other than you will be a good sysop.  Lt. Dunn  Talk   18:53, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thank you :)

Support - My words are the same as Dunn's.   Sgt.Ex  Ask the Expert, He'll answer! 18:58, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, but you haven't been very active at the moment just as your description says above. Also, you need to participate in the community a little bit more like on Talk Pages, Blogs, War Room topics and Forums. Finally, just saying that done helpful edits, kind and mature and not very active lately isn't going to award you with a position as an admin. Say any important things you've done and such. You will get it soon but at the moment, I'm going to say no. 20:03, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Still no. You're not active enough and I don't think you're that mature. Poketape Talk 21:49, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We have enough administrators at the moment. Sorry man, that's the only reason. I think you're fit for an admin spot, but at the moment they're all taken up. Wait a couple of months, or wait until the release of CoD7. I know that is a long time, but we have enough admins at the moment. I'm sorry and I hope you understand. 21:57, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - You are a very good user, no question about it, but we have a ton of those right now and more than enough administrators. You just don't stand out. Sorry. Still, I must say that I really appreciate your enthusiasm and dedication to this wiki.  Capt. Bord T C   E 22:51, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Alot of the admins we have right now haven't been here nearly as long as me, so come on please. I know some of you may find this Immature, but I want to let everyone know this.

Not Yet - You are very, very, very valuble, but you just dont really lack the traits needed. Slowrider7 01:37, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I haven't seen much recent involvement in community discussions and policymaking. Time on the wiki has been considerable at one year, but the lack of activity is the biggest concern. Promises to be more active does not convince me of appropriateness as an admin. --Scottie theNerd 13:29, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I cannot deny your seniority; you've been here at least as long as I have, and that is a long time. However, in all of that time you have only made ~2300 edits. That demonstrates that compared to other users you are not all that active, and as we've been saying, you just don't really come off as a spectacular user. If you are serious about becoming an admin you can't just come back once a month to post an RFA and not do anything else. GET INVOLVED. That will greatly increase your chances of success in the future.  Capt. Bord T C   E 18:20, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet - You are invariably a great asset, but besides welcoming me and a couple (in all honesty ill-informed) comments in blogs, I have seen nothing of you recently. You have a great amount of Mainspace edits, but you've been here a year longer than I, and Griever, have been yet your Edit:Time ratio is lower than both of ours, I say not yet.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 02:13, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Good editor, but even you said it there yourself, you're barely active, why you did this this RfA actually knowing and stating that you're not active is just bizarre. Per Imrlybord7. Smuff 17:01, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Hax 217
I nominate Hax 217 for administrator. He is very active and edits the wiki often. He nominates many articles in the improvement drive and is a known user. That's about all.

Support as nominator. Poketape Talk 20:27, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - He is active, but we have no need for more sysops at this point in time. 20:34, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards Oppose - He's got an enormous amount of Mainspace {Special:Editcount/Hax 217) for his total, but he's not well-enough known or respected.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 21:39, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- While he is active, and he has alot of main space edits. He is a very good editor, but admins have to be the best of the best. PLus is is not to well known. --T C   E   B 21:43, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We have enough administrators at the moment. 21:44, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- Per cod4, we have enough admins right now. Also, he needs to get involved in community discusion  21:48, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral I'm not to sure about him. On one hand he has a lot of activity. But, on the other he has a very big main space. User lacks mainspace edits.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 03:10, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Infected32: You're making it seem like having a high mainspace editcount is a bad thing. It is a very good thing. -- 02:14, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Unfortunately, I don't know the user, and the nomination is too brief and general for me to support the candidate. Editing a lot and nominating articles for improvement aren't signs that someone has appropriate qualities to be an admin. --Scottie theNerd 03:08, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Callofduty4. Braden 0.0 03:15, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per the others, Hax has a large mainspace count and is quite active. However we already have enough admin's at this time. Doc.  Richtofen  08:07, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Not known enough in the community and there are enough admins at the moment. 09:58, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet - Hax definitely has potential to become an administrator in the future, but I don't think he has enough of a presence on the wiki, we don't need more administrators, and there are enough users who I would support over him that I cannot offer a supporting a vote in good conscience while said users are not yet administrators. Imrlybord7 13:19, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - You're a great user, and have a bunch of mainspace, but I just don't know. We have a lot of admins at the moment too, so there's no real reason to get any more.  Sactage  Talk  13:26, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - per everything above.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 18:23, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Who is he? I've never seen this guy before, like ever, it might be my timezone, but I haven't seen any mainspace or community edits. Also, no need for more sysops currently, wait until Back Ops or something. Smuff 19:32, April 20, 2010 (UTC)