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.

DevilWarrior112 (4)
This is the fourth RFA I have opened and this time I feel up for the job. This time I have been undoing vandals, been more participated in the community in Blogs, Talk pages and Forums and have been real friendly to fellow Wikians on this wiki. I'm really confident and can treat this position greatly. It would mean the world to me if this time I became an admin. Sometimes, I look up to the admins and think "I can treat their position very great". So please, Wikians, I feel up for the test and can you vote for me?10:43, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Not Now-Oppose There is a big disscussion going on in the War room regarding admins, I dont think any RFA's should be past untill this is closed. Also I feel there are better candidates for adminship. -- T  C  E   B 10:42, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't get the feeling that I can trust the candidate with an administrator position. I really don't care about blog or forum posting, but I don't really see DevilWarrior112 active in policymaking or involved in the major discussions in the War Room. I'm a bit concerned about how it "would mean the world" to him if he became admin, as that sort of reverence for a position is unhealthy and typically leads to ill-prepared and wrongly-suited candidates gaining powerful tools. All-in-all, I don't have the same sense of confidence in the candidate as I would with most of the current admins. --Scottie theNerd 10:43, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Blogs are overrated. Also, we have more than enough administrators. And there is a war room discussion currently going on, which means this should be put on hold until the discussion is over. 10:57, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Not Now - Per Cain. 11:09, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - You really have not done anything special that stands you out from the crowd. Like Bord made the weapons charts, Chia and Joeyaa support the site, etc. By the way, we all get that feeling one time or another. Slowrider7 11:12, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Not to be anal, but Den Kirson (the broiest of bros) made the weapons chart. I just incorporated said information into articles and wrote a crapload for the weapons, perks, and attachments pages. Not to mention the whole Modern Warfare 2 pre-release weapons list thing. Imrlybord7 12:13, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral -This really should be stopped until the current war room discussion is finalized. The candidate might make a good admin, but I need to see more before I am able to support him. Sactage  Talk  11:15, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - User has an extremely high opinion of himself when he has no reason to. I sugar-coated it the first few times because I hoped that this would be a passing phase for Devil, but clearly it is not, so I will be blunt. I cannot possibly imagine Devil becoming an administrator. He is extremely immature and has shown little (if any) initiative in joining in on policy discussions. As someone who has done a lot of mainspace work, I have a deep appreciation for his contributions from back when people still did mainspace editing, but it isn't enough to allow me to look past his flaws and support him in his repeated bids for adminship. Imrlybord7 12:13, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm going to improve a lot now thanks to all the users comments regarding my behaviour. I'll try to be more mature and kind to the wikians and will participate in Forums more. 13:57, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - It's not that you aren't nice. You are actually very nice. However, you come across as fairly young. I think you once said that you are 14 years old (forgive me if I'm wrong), which is indeed quite young. That can be overcome through professionalism, but keep in mind that a 14-year-old becoming an admin on a big wiki is incredibly rare. Don't get down on yourself if you don't end up becoming an admin; it is especially difficult right now and won't get that much easier. Imrlybord7 13:20, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - As I said earlier, this should really be on hold. Nonetheless, I do not think the candidate is admin mateirial. He is involved with blog posts and such, but who Isn't? He doesn't participate in community discussions regularly, like those who become admins should. As for it "meaning the world to him", that isn't a very good reason to be elected admin. It almost sounds like he is trying to make us pity him, like he needs it to survive. He doesn't. And to add on to what Bord said: fourteen is quite young. I'm the same age myself, and I don't think there's anyway I'm putting in an RfA until a year or two from now, because I don't know enough. Also, A question: What do you mean when you say you "look up to the admins and think 'I can treat their position very great.'"?  Sactage  Talk  19:34, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

No Openings - Honestly, I see no users who fit the criteria presented, myself, and I do not see real need for any new admins now that activity seems to have declined so much as to be all chat. For good examples: Nobody has a chance, not you, not me, probably not Scottie, it simply isn't time.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 22:47, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Activity in policy and War Room - Scottie theNerd, the current admins
 * Activity in blogs and chat - Everyone, really.
 * Activity on mainspace - the Admins, and a few others, there's nothing to do anymore
 * Reputation - very few, possibly Scottie.