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 subsections lists mosts 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.

Doc.Richtofen
I have been here since August 2009. In the past few months I have become very involved in reporting vandals to admins and fixing pages that have been vandalized. I have an impeccable behaviour record. I have amassed over 750 mainspace edits. With administrative powers, I could handle pages better. I could also block vandals myself, instead of waiting for an admin to do it, which is sometimes a lengthy process.

Support- I believe you would make a great admin.AdvancedRookie 19:51, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - With a perfect behavioral record and a lot of contributions to the site, I can't imagine why not. Imrlybord7 20:52, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Very easy-to-get-along-with user, and does excellent anti-vandal work as well. 21:41, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The Doctor is a very kind and helpful user. He's mature, and has a flawless behavioral record. A great editor and user all round. 21:51, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Doc. has made many contributions and is always nice to new users. I think he would make an amazing admin. Lt.  Dunn   23:07, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support- Per all above and he has no enemies. Lt. Col. Gen.Cain T C   E 00:04, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Strong presence on the wiki. Has an excellent track record and an good attitude towards working with other editors. Would be an asset to the admin team. --Scottie theNerd 06:49, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Same thing I said about 808, how you're not an editor already beats me, you're one of the most dedicated editors to this wiki. Smuff 19:22, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Why not? One of the best editors here. Sorry you don't got enough mainspace edits. User lacks mainspace edits. Poketape Talk 19:34, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all, he is a great user. 03:03, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Perfect admin he'd be. I support him. 07:58, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. He's a great and very nice user who would make a very good admin. 7th Body 23:59, March 13, 2010 (UTC)7th Body

Support - Perfect admin material, what with the perfect record, anti-vandal activity, and mainspace edits. 🇨🇩 03:29, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Cpl. Wilding (2)
I believe my last RfA failed either because I didn't have the mainspace or it was just too soon. Either way, I believe I have the skills to be an admin and to help the wiki become a better place.


 * Over 800 mainspace edits


 * Active in the community


 * Started "The War on Impersonal Yous"
 * Has reverted a lot of vandalism

Pending/Comment - You may be the most active member of the coalition against impersonal yous, but I'm still the founder. Anyway, you are clearly a great editor, but I'm not entirely sure that you wield enough influence to be deserving of adminship. Sorry to leave you hanging like that. Imrlybord7 13:44, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Pending - Per Imrlybord7. It shouldn't be long though before it will be supports. It's sort of like with DevilWarrior, get your opinion heard in more places and that will help.

Change to Support - After looking through your contributions I think you are worthy. Imrlybord7 16:29, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Wilding is a deserving and active editor. 22:16, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Wilding is an active user and has many mainspace edits. Lt.  Dunn   22:27, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per Imrlybord. But about point #3, that's vague and unprofessional. So I can say that I started "The War On Vandals"? --   T    C    E     '''EightOhEight    T     C     E     21:06, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You are a very active editor, I see you fixing things all the time. I think you would make a great admin as you have the wiki's best interest in mind.

Change to Support - Per Saint.

SaintofLosAngelesXD(m)
I hereby nominate Saint for the position of bureaucrat. I feel that A) we need another 'crat (no offense to Chia, but it's too big a job for one user), and B) that Saint is the most "flawless" of all of the sysops. He is extremely intelligent, friendly, patient, helpful, dedicated, and well-behaved. I can think of no reason not to afford him these powers. Imrlybord7 17:41, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as nominator. Imrlybord7 17:41, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Completely agree.

Support - I agree wholeheartedly with this nomination. Mmm, Crispy... 19:02, March 5, 2010 (UTC) User lacks mainspace edits. Poketape Talk 18:30, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all, Saint's a good choice for the position.--WouldYouKindly 19:19, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - We definitely need another active b'crat --   T    C    E     '''EightOhEight    T     C     E     20:12, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- I'm sorry, but he's more of the social editor. He's made around 930 mainspace edits, but I see another, more deserving, better editing admin right below this.

Comment RfAs shouldn't be affected by each other. It's whether or not Saint is deserving. Poketape Talk 04:13, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support Definately. I wish I nominated him! Poketape Talk 00:03, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Has the right method and manner for someone to take on higher administration duties. --Scottie theNerd 04:16, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Saint is well known and we need another bureaucrat. Lt.  Dunn   02:22, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks to all for the support. Much appreciated. 23:55, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Great user and well respected in the community. 02:45, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Great person, editor, admin and steam friend.AdvancedRookie 16:12, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - . Saint is an amazing user and admin for alot of reasons. To name a few: 1) When ever i need help with something I know I can go to Saint for help and within a day he will have helped me. 2) Saint is a really frendily user, he has baseicly no enemies and he is always involved in discussions. --Lt. Col. Gen.Cain T C   E 00:35, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I agree. 14:41, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Nothing much left to say. Icepac K s 00:37, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above; there's really not much else that can be said excpet to reinforce the perception of impartiality - I don't think I've seen a cross word directed at anybody on Saint's part since I started editing here a few months ago. --  Griever0311   00:49, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - As supposed "bureaucrat material", you should understand me when I say that I'm more worthy of becoming a bureaucrat. I've been here longer than you, I have more edits than you, and I've given up more time for this wiki than you, so why you have more support votes than me I don't understand. Me and Imrlybord are some of the most veteran editors here, we've had accounts since December 2008. Also, we've made many edits as IPs beforehand. So I don't understand why Imrlybord and I aren't put at the front of the queue. If I asked you the question, "who is the bigger help to the wiki", I don't see how most of you would say Saint. /facepalm. 10:28, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said on the talk page -- a good editor does not necessarily make a good admin. You might have the qualities of a good -- if not great -- editor. Many might not consider you for bureaucrat because of other traits that are undesirable for someone going for a higher position. Being a bureaucrat isn't about seniority; there's no "queue" to become a bureaucrat. I'm surprised you can't understand why people prefer Saint over you. The reasons are listed above. --Scottie theNerd 11:46, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Cod4, I'm disappointed that you would say such things. Our edit counts and veteran statuses do not qualify us to be bureaucrats. I did not nominate Saint because he is a bigger help to the wiki than other sysops. To be frank, he is not. However, he has the best combination of personality traits to execute the office when compared to other current sysops. Imrlybord7 23:45, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - "You might" and "good -- if not great -- editor" don't really appeal to me, I've always thought I've been a pretty damn great editor if you don't mind me saying. I've helped this wiki out quite a bit more than most, Saint included. My other "traits" you speak of have not damaged the integrity of this wiki in any way. I treat people as they deserve to be treated. If that means I am overly mean to some people, unfortunately so be it. A 3 month block should teach that vandal a lesson. The way he vandalized my talk page suggested to be he'd need a pretty lengthy ban for him to learn his lesson. I think I perform my job here pretty well. I've handled the PGB situation without much drama, and it seems he has learnt his lesson after the block I gave him. I don't believe in sympathy for vandals, if they wanted sympathy they wouldn't have vandalized in the first place. I'm always open to apologies though, I'm willing to forgive someone if they realize what they've done was stupid and unnecessary. In case you don't realize I am only trying to help out. 22:22, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Saint is not the oldest user out there, nor does he have the most edits. However, Saint has the best people skills of any admin on the wiki, and is always ready to help. He has helped me and many others, most of said people on frequent occasions, so you, Saint, are deserving of the position of Bureaucrat because of your charisma, time devoted to the wiki, and general helpfulness. 🇨🇩 03:25, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Callofduty4 (2)
I nominate COD4 as a bureaucrat because he helps a lot out and is a great user too. He is a great administrator, does a lot of work and is a big help to the wiki. He should really deserve these powers. 20:00, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As nominator. 20:00, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - This has been brought up before, and has been put down because Callofduty4 lacks the aloofness of a bureaucrat or something like that --   T    C   <font color="darkolivegreen"> E    <font style="background:black"> '''EightOhEight    T     C     E     20:25, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - He's going to become a 'crat in November. Ask Chia about it.


 * Comment - With all due respect, Doc, Chia doesn't decide that. -- 2nd_Lieutenant.png8oh8sig.png <font color="darkolivegreen"> T   <font color="darkolivegreen"> C   <font color="darkolivegreen"> E    TF141.jpg<font style="background:black"> '''EightOhEight    T     C     E     20:25, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Well, why dosen't he become one earlier? I'll talk to Chia about it. 20:23, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Wait a second, isn't he an admin already? Smuff 20:55, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Smuff, this is to be a Beauracrat. Slowrider7 20:57, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- No the only reason Callofduty4 can block people is because he's got funk.

Support- He's neen a pal, has around 1250 mainspace edits and has been very kind to a lot of people. I'm going to call him a mirror, if you're nice and do good stuff, he's nice. If you're a selfish, asshole vandal, he'll act selfish and be an ass to you, cause you deserve it. If you disagree with me you must now be paying much attention,

Oppose That actually needs a little attention. Acting like an ass to asses might seem okay, but it's important to create a standard. Poketape Talk 00:03, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment-Poketape showing vandals respect should be worth a block.

Neutral - He's competent and practical, which is halfway there. However, bureaucrats shouldn't need to act like asses to anybody, and I'm concerned that having this "mirror" attitude will be more detrimental to the community than worthwhile. --Scottie theNerd 04:18, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Firstly, thanks a lot for the nomination, Devilwarrior, it means a lot to me. Secondly, when have I been an "ass"? I warn vandals and I block them. How is that being an ass? If me being an "ass" relates to the message I left you on your talk page, then I don't know what to say, what you guys did was completely unacceptable by any means. 09:44, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you warn and block vandals, but you also laugh at them. 10:16, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Why do you have to cherry pick one bad case out of many good cases? He deserved that anyway. Yes, it was a babyish thing to do but still, he deserved it. 21:26, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the first thing I saw, and it doesn't even matter if someone deserved it. It's part of an administrator's job to be both above the vandals and trolls and to be a good example for behavior other users should have on the site. There's not that big of a leap from doing what you did to an IP to doing that to another registered user, which is most definitely, at that point, unacceptable. 04:44, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It pains me to do this, but after becoming an admin I now understand where Chia was coming from. A 'crat should basically be perfect. You are an excellent sysop and editor, and someone who I hope considers me a friend, but I really don't think any sysops besides Saint and maybe WYK are worthy of cratship at the moment. /hopes you aren't mad at me Imrlybord7 22:09, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Chiafriend you say that if I did what I did to a registered user it would be totally unacceptable. Therefore, you're going right against the fabled "All editors are equal" policy. TBH that policy is bollocks, it basically saying the average user has the same authority over this site as the big bureaucrat, which is rubbish. I don't understand why you're so negative when it comes to me. Imrlybord, how can you say that bureaucrats have to be perfect. Don't you remember what happened with BigM? If it pained you to write what you did then you shouldn't have done it. What you guys are saying is total bullshit in my eyes. 10:28, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * COD:AEAE does not state that all users have the same authority. The policy states that all users are equally important and, by extension, deserve the same treatment regardless of whether they are unregistered, regular or admin. It is the backbone of any wiki, regardless of whether or not it actually has it as a policy. Any wiki that does not treat users equally is one that is dominated by power-hungry individuals who want to pump up their online egos. What you did to that anon was as unacceptable, just as it would be unacceptable to do it to a registered user. That you think the policy is bollocks, and your low consideration of other people's opinions, does not give me faith in your capacity to be an admin, let alone be promoted to Bureaucrat. --Scottie theNerd 11:38, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above comments. --Scottie theNerd 11:38, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It "pained me" because I like you. BigM didn't deserve to be a crat after what he did, so he lost his privileges. Imrlybord7 23:07, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - It's not my place to vote for crats, I don't know anything about them. Btw, who's BigM? Smuff 14:38, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - BigM is the user Rs4life07, who is an experienced user on the wiki. 14:57, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I never said all editors should not be equal. I called the AEAE policy "bollocks" because it gives the impression that your average IP has the same authority as a bureaucrat. Also, read the blocking policy. Although I do not use it, at several points it differentiates blocks for registered and unregistered users. So really that's another policy that's bollocks. I have a low consideration of people's opinions which make no sense or I do not agree with. Although I admit that isn't neutral at all, that's unfortunately how I work. I have a perfect capacity to be an admin. I've been one for 4-5 months now, and if I did not have the capacity to be one it wouldn't have worked out for me. Fortunately, I think I'm a pretty good admin. Unfortunately you beg to differ. 22:22, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think anyone is disputing your capabilities as a sysop. But being a sysop is already a very high position. I would be perfectly content to never become a 'crat, and every other sysop should feel the same way. Cratship is not the natural culmination of sysopship. It is a position that should only be afforded to the most responsible, behaved, and neutral sysops. You are already part of what I consider to be a pretty illustrious group of users. What is there to be unsatisfied about? Imrlybord7 23:42, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Cod1 (5)
Hi there everybody. Well it's me again. I believe it is the right time to try again. If I become an admin, I promise to work with everybody. I promise to use my tools to good measure, and with great professionalism.

I have the determination to make this wiki an even better place for CoD info. I promise to be professional with my tools, and act like any other user. I know being an administrator does not make you any more important than anyone else. I feel I am pretty well known on this wiki, I have a pretty mixed reputation, and over 2100 edits.

So please have your say. Thanks a lot, 00:33, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Cod1 has the required mainspace edits and would be a good admin. Lt.  Dunn   00:42, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Nuetral- It pains me to do this. But there are three main reasons why I must do this. 1) There's gonna be a hell load of admins coming in. I think it would be better if you and I ran together in April 2)You're not that well known and haven't been that active lately 3)You're not that active in community disscussions. I wanna support but I just can't see it . You deserve this, it is a very tough decision, but I'm going for nuetral, but you'll most likely get passed.

Comment Is there really any reason to run at the same time? If anything wouldn't that just lessen your chances? Poketape Talk 03:56, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral leaning towards Support - Sorry about this dude, but I've never seen you until this point, however, you do look like a good editor, you do have a nice edit count and if you get more votes from some admins or high profile users (808 and Doc for eg.) I'll happily change it to a yes. Also, don't worry, not having a rep isn't that bad a thing, just get some support ok? Smuff 01:07, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I still don't think you're up to adminship. At least you took a long time this time. Make sure you remember to include what number try this is. To me it seems like you just took longer so people would forget about you (Which seems to have worked). Poketape Talk 03:56, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - PGB's right, you haven't been that active or partaking in community discussions lately. You have a good edit count which always helps. Become more involved in the community and I will support you.

Neutral - If you became more active I'd support you. You have everything an admin needs except the activity. 09:44, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - More activity needed. I'll support you if you keep doing what everyone's telling you to do. 12:41, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral leaning towards support - Per all. Imrlybord7 20:49, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Juan Jose Rodriguez
I nominate Rodriguez as admin because he's near 2,000 overall edits, his user page is wonderful and he is a respected user. 08:39, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As nominator. 08:42, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I do have to admit, he is one of the best editors on this wiki & he is very friendly and helpful, but his edits most of the time are very minor, usually one or two letter changes. While Im going to admit that he is a major help to the Wiki, he just needs to put more volume in his edits. Slowrider7 12:24, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, Leaning towards Support - I'd love to make you an admin, JJR, but like Imrlybord said, you need to be more active in community discussions. I haven't really seen that in the past few days plus like Slowrider said, your edits are rather minor. Cpl. Wilding 12:28, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - First of all, I'd like to thank DevilWarrior112 for the request. I'd also like to say that I agree with Bord and I have to be more active in community discussions. As of right now, here are the goals I'd like to uncover:

1) Finding out how to be more active in community discussions (How about IRC meetings? No-one's ever on those. I just want to mainly know WHAT to participate in.)

2) Possibly becoming a rollback.

I'd like to say that I will take all votes for, neutral or against me in stride and I WILL try to improve. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez Reportin' for duty. 13:16, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - In any of my discussions with him he has demonstrated an excellent attitude, and he is obviously a great editor. I would gladly trust him to be a sysop. However, he does need to get a bit more involved in the community (which he is free to do during and after his RFA, regardless of the outcome). Imrlybord7 16:37, March 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't have to bother with IRC. Things like reporting vandals, voting, and just getting chummy with other users are some of the best and easiest ways to go about getting involved with the community. And you already deserve rollback, so you might as well just ask Chia for it already. Imrlybord7 16:55, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Imrlybord7 (What? I haven't said that in a while and there is nothing else to say.)  Doc.   Richtofen  17:19, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You're a good editor, and go around and look after the wiki well, so you've got my support. Smuff 20:03, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Jose is a very friendly, mature, and dedicated user, although I do agree with others that you should get a tad more involved in the community. 00:30, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thank you, everyone, for the comments. Saints, I completley agree and I will try harder to get more active in community discussion. Thank you for the support, and thank you to Slowrider and Cpl. Wilding for the advice - I find it very helpful. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez Reportin' for duty. 00:33, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, Leaning towards Support-A great user with lot's of main space edits. But lacks community presence. --<font color="darkred" font size="4" font face="Neuropol">Lt. Col. Gen.Cain T C   E 00:37, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Support Upon reviewing you as a user i realized the error of my ways and so I now support you. JJR has over 2100 edit's now, he always makes quality edits and is devoted to the wiki. Proof of that is if you look at his user page, he puts so much effort and work into every thing he does. --<font color="darkred" font size="4" font face="Neuropol">Lt. Col. Gen.Cain T C   E 23:29, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Saint. Lt.  Dunn   13:00, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - JJR is fine admin material. I see no problems in the future. He is well mannered and very well written. 22:25, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Cpl. Dunn
I know this is probably too soon, but I have over 500 mainspace edits, and I feel I am well known by the community. I am always welcoming new users, participating in War Room topics and blog conversations. I am always reporting vandals to admins and waiting for them to ban them. As Doc. said in his RFA, waiting for an admin to ban a vandal can take a while. I want to become an admin so I can better protect pages and do more against vandals. Lt.  Dunn   03:06, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Pending - Both active and productive, but a bit "green" for my tastes. Imrlybord7 03:54, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Define "Green," Bord. Slowrider7 05:47, March 15, 2010 (UTC)