Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Crazy sam10

Ok, I thought I would put this forward for two reasons:

The first reasoning I have is that many of you may know me as the chat mod who is commonly online a lot (with some exceptions due to time zones), in this time I have seen a fair few sock puppets and the only way to deal with them is to go into IRC and get someone to come out and deal with them. Whilst IRC can be lively at times it is supposed to be the talk for users to discuss wikia changes and as such disturbing them slows this down. Gaining the ability to do this myself cuts the middle man as it were as any sock puppets can be dealt with quickly and efficiently without the need to disturb the IRC chat.

My Second reason for doing this is the release of Modern Warfare 3. It is fast approaching and that means there will be a large influx of edits, not all of them helpful. Getting this adminship now would be very beneficial for the wikia as they would gain another user to patrol the recent changes. Whilst I'm not much of an editor I am quite adept at dealing with vandals and would happily help out, also my presence in chat would help out as if any vandals strike while I'm otherwise busy their details can be placed in chat so I can see them and deal with them.

I understand many of the users here don't know me too well as I am commonly in the chat system, but I can assure you whilst I have few edits I do know what I'm doing as an admin. I am currently an admin at the Fallout wikia (The Vault), which requires you to have 1000 edits and 3 months activity minimum before you can put forward request, I understand this is a different wikia and it should have no bearing here, but I wanted it to be brought to others attention I do know what I'll be doing. Thank you for reading this and please leave your opinions below.

Thanks again. - Crazy Sam10 Talk Poll 19:08, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  19:10, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, MW3 is coming up soon... You never know what might happen. 19:19, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * The release of MW3 works as an argument here, but not on my RfA? Fair enough. 20:11, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just saying, your RfA was during the summer. Now that MW3 is literally a month away, I think people are starting to realize that its going to be a time of more work than originally expected.
 * Unlikely Damac. It still does not make it fair.23:08, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hiptech, i'm not saying thats what happened, but I know from experience that when a problem is farther in the future, you tend not to think about the worst possible outcome. But as that problem gets nearer, you start to worry. I'm not saying this is what everyone thought, but I know this is definetly whats going through some peoples minds. 23:27, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  19:12, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 19:24, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't see why he wouldn't benifit from these tools.  15:43, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Per N7. Also, Sam is a admin on Fallout wikia, so he's more than resposible to be a admin here, since he's a admin on such a great wikia.    Lucas is Crunch! talk   16:29, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin here, but could be a troll and vandal elsewhere. Being admin on another wiki shows you can be trusted there not here. 16:57, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are trusted with the tools at one place, why couldn't you be trusted here? I don't see what you're trying to say elmo... 17:07, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am trying to say is that trust doesn't carry over form one wiki to another. Azuris gave Sentra246 rollback, basing it upon his trust for him from Wikipedia. Basically, trust can't be directly transferred from one place to another; it can however, be used an example of one's maturity. 17:32, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) While you are a great user and mean well by this, you are still inexperienced on this wiki. With less than five hundred edits and almost no input into wiki-related discussions in the War Room, I feel you are requesting administative powers preemtively. Off-wiki experience is a bonus, as is a knowledge of the sysop tools, but it doesn't count for anything here. I do acknowledge that MW3 (and to an extent BF3) will bring in a huge amount of traffic and that "you can never have too many admins," but I am confident that the current team is fully capable of performing its job when the time comes (we can always use lockdowns if necessary). I like you Sam and there will be a time when you become an admin, but with your current experience it won't be now.  19:27, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mhm... Sam's also an admin at Fallout Wiki btw, so he'd be coming in with experiance. 19:42, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Having admin on another wiki shouldn't be used as a main argument for supporting an RfA. It does bring experience, but it he can't be trusted with them (not saying Sam can't - I think he is one of the most mature users here) he shouldn't be given them here. User:Bibliomaniac15 is a crat on Wikipedia, and is he an admin/crat here? No. 19:51, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I just skimmed over your oppose in the first place, didn't see you already acknowledged his sysop tools at other wikis. 20:27, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Not yet I think it's best to see some participation in community discussion first. Besides that, Crazy Sam is a very friendly and amiable person, and does have a knack at moderating the chat with the utmost efficiency. It's just that I'd like to see more participation with the website than just chat. 19:29, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Cod4. 19:33, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I completely agree with Callofduty4. Crazy Sam is one of the more mature users here while not having so many edits. With a little more involvement in the forums and some mainspace work, I think he would be qualified. Shotrocket6 19:32, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Not yet I agree with COD4 and Shot on this, Sam is in my opinion one of the most friendly people on the wiki and has alot of experience with vandals, image licesing, chat moderating, and so on, but I think that he needs to pick up his editcount and overall involvement outside the chatroom. He is well deserving of the job, BUT, not at this time. 19:39, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) 20PX_SIG.gif  Talk 22:52, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) You're heading in the right direction, however I haven't seen you edit on mainspace really. Just mainly anti-vandal work. 22:56, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Per all, sorry Sam.22:58, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Per all, and you only have 480 (!!!) edits. I think you should wait a little Sam.--23:06, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) I'm sorry but, I don't think your ready.00:57, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) What is this I don't even....  With only 100 mainspace edits seriously???  You're kidding right?  --  ThunderGun.png  Guitar t-bone Talk! Waffe.png  11:18, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldn't you of said that in a nicer, less rude way? 03:46, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot what that policy was, it's on the tip of my tongue.22:42, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) --Scottie theNerd 12:23, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Being an admin gives the wiki an extra 'banhammer', it is likely there will be an inflex of users coming in, and not alll of them will be helpful, I was here when MW2 released and I saw one user constantly vandalising the MW2 page. - Crazy Sam10 Talk Poll[[File:ShadowAttackSmallAni.gif]] 16:49, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * There are far more qualified users that are becoming admins to help with the influx of users, your lack of mainspace and overall edits show very little compulsion to help our wiki. 22:42, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  --  15:54, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Invalid reason. 16:30, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Reason is valid to show lack of community participation. BOofficialicon.jpg Poketape Talk 20:28, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oooh yea -- 20:30, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-invalidated, don't be a dick to the person requesting adminship. If you want to say he's inactive, say it with dignity, not as a slap-dash insult. 21:14, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) BOofficialicon.jpg  Poketape Talk 20:32, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Vandalise' and 'vandalize' is the matter of British English and American English. 20:37, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always wondered why the British spell a bunch of things containing the letter z with s. Also, why do they refer to businesses as plural? BOofficialicon.jpg Poketape Talk 22:36, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Because that's how it was originally spelled in the English language, but then the American Dialect came about using "z" instead of "s", and other differences such as spelling colour without the "u". Plus, it's not just the British dialect that uses "s" as opposed to "z", a majority of English dialects do, so the American dialect can be seen as an outlier. Anyway, sort of off-topic for the discussion at hand. 22:04, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  Ireland_flag.gif  CoaZ Talk Ireland_flag.gif   22:16, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) You barely have over 100 mainspace edits first of all. You don't really edit pages, at all. In my mind there is no way you could benefit from the use of these flags, due to the fact that you don't really do much right now.  22:31, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  Ireland_flag.gif  CoaZ Talk Ireland_flag.gif   22:16, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) You barely have over 100 mainspace edits first of all. You don't really edit pages, at all. In my mind there is no way you could benefit from the use of these flags, due to the fact that you don't really do much right now.  22:31, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) You barely have over 100 mainspace edits first of all. You don't really edit pages, at all. In my mind there is no way you could benefit from the use of these flags, due to the fact that you don't really do much right now.  22:31, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Comments/Questions
To those opposing on the basis of the blanket rule of "You have admin status on _____ wiki doesn't mean you should be one here: Think carefully about why candidates are raising past experience, and similar consider what importance having x number of edits actually reflect.

What do you actually want in an admin? For anyone who's tried being a moderator on a busy forum or an admin on a wiki, one of the core traits that a candidate should have is the time and dedication needed to go through backlog -- user ban requests, vandal reports, article deletions and so on. You'd also want the admin to possess appropriate social skills to deal with users, and have a presence in the community.

None of that is reflected in an edit count, let alone focusing on mainspace edits. As I've raised numerous times, a mainspace edit could be anything from writing an entire article to correcting one typo. The number of edits doesn't reflect much, and there are periods of time between releases where there isn't actually that much to edit. It's not important for an admin to attain edit counts that rival Dragon Ball power levels. A drunk doesn't necessarily make a good bartender, just as a prolific editor doesn't necessarily make a good admin.

When you're an admin on another established wiki like The Vault or, hell, Wikipedia, you're working with wiki communities that are significantly more complex and generally better run than CODwiki. If the community here is saying "Actually, that doesn't matter", that's our loss. Sometimes, people with vast experiences elsewhere want to come here to contribute to another interest at the same level, just as people in real-life jobs move around.

Really, the only thing that's relevant for someone else coming into CODwiki applying to be an admin is to have been on the wiki for long enough to know what the community is like and how things are done. Time spent on the wiki is more important than number of edits. --Scottie theNerd 17:36, October 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * My opposition is based on the fact he has little involvement in the community other than chat. While there is no official requirements for becoming an admin, having under 100MS edits shows little effort in the way of countervandalism and the like. Other than the recent MW2 event, he has made no contributions in the War Room, or any forum for that matter. To me, this shows inexperience in the sense that he has not paricipated in any major discussions. Modding chat is important, but so is getting involed in the community and to the same extent, patrolling the RC. If he were to get involved in said areas he could become admin material here fairly quickly. 17:51, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Your points are well-explained and valid in that you do cover a broad range of reasons. I'm referring to users above who are drawing conclusions based purely on edit count. --Scottie theNerd 04:29, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought we generally disregarded votes about the insufficiency of one's edit count anyway. Edit count is just an arbitrary number and it means nothing. 12:15, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * So someone with 100MS edits on this wiki and is an admin on some other random wiki should have a better chance of being an admin over someone who has 1000+ edits on this wiki? Higher MS edits on this wiki show dedication to this wiki and anti-vandal work. We don't want to give admin powers to someone who will abuse them or leave the wiki after they get them. Remember Icepacks? Ireland_flag.gif  CoaZ Talk Ireland_flag.gif  22:48, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mainspace BS again? Do you know what 1000 mainspace edits mean? It means someone's hit the Save Page button 1000 times on an article page. It doesn't matter if it was fixing their own typo or writing an entire article. It doesn't distinguish between copyediting and anti-vandalism. It frustrates me that some members of the community have the fixation that "mainspace = everything", which has absolutely no basis and has never been clearly shown in my time on this wiki. Mainspace alone does not show dedication to the wiki. Other namespaces such as Talk, Forum (which includes the War Room) and Call of Duty Wiki (which includes policy pages, AfD, etc.) show a level of involvement in the wiki beyond that of just editing articles. The sucky thing about this is that these are often downplayed, ignored or even used against an editor because their mainspace percentage isn't high enough.
 * I recall, a long time ago, a time when some senior editors on CODwiki entertained the idea of asking me to request adminship, and I recall one side-comment by a newer editor that I didn't really have that many mainspace edits. A truthfully, I don't. Forget that I pretty much reformed UotM, brought down half the redundant and poorly-thought policies, wrote up thousand-word proposals and arguments to scrap COD:G and, along with Bovell, began the drafting process for COD:N. And that's just work on this wiki. I'm not counting extensive administration work done on other wikis that have been around for far longer than CODwiki and other moderation work in popular gaming communities. As of this post, I have 796 mainspace edits, only a third of my overall edit count and a bare fraction of edits compared to editors of comparable time on the wiki. One, I'm not amazingly active. Two, I don't primarily work in mainspace, because COD isn't a dynamic game that needs extensive, continual mainspace changes, to the point where mainspace actually is mainly just anti-vandalism. But that's not the only thing admins do.
 * I don't know about you, but I look favourably on people who have proven admin experience, just as a boss would look for potential employees with considerable industry experience. I'm not talking about being the founder and admin of Harry Potter Broomstick Erotica Wiki with 3 users. This application brought up admin experience on The Vault -- one of the more established and, in my opinion, better gaming wikis out there.
 * In short, the actual number of edits doesn't count for anything. If you're judging a candidate by his contribution to the wiki over other experience, that makes some sense, but if you're deriving that purely from mainspace edit count, that's fundamentally wrong. Supporting someone with lower mainspace doesn't necessarily make them bad, abusive admins. Someone with a high edit count can still be a dick. --Scottie theNerd 03:25, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * tl;dr version: **** mainspace. Your involvement with the wiki is not based on mainspace edits and never should be. --Scottie theNerd 03:29, October 8, 2011 (UTC)