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.

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. --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. --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)

Support - Wait, this hasn't already happened? PER ALL!--WouldYouKindly 01:04, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - JJR is constantly on the recent edits page, and has great grammar and writing skills. This wiki may have 3 new admins and a 'crat soon... 🇨🇩 01:06, March 18, 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)

Not Yet - Very inexperienced. Technically, this isn't supposed to affect my vote, but your work doesn't require admin privileges -- EightOhEight  17:22, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - "Green" means fresh and inexperienced -- straight out of boot camp. While I do see a fair amount of involvement with the wiki, being on the wiki for only 2 months is too short a time to grasp the community and be seen as a dependable user. Being an admin doesn't necessarily mean you can "better protect" pages, and while I applaud your enthusiasm, it's not right -- in my opinion -- to dole out admin positions to people who have only recently joined the wiki. --Scottie theNerd 06:07, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment One of you (Eight or Scottie) forgot to add a vote. This might not be the reason, but remember that Not Yet is a negative vote. Poketape Talk 23:50, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What happened to trying next month, Dunn? 11:10, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thank you all for your comments. I will take them into account, and next time I will not be so "green" and hopefully succesful. Lt.  Dunn   22:14, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support- I think that Cpl.Dunn is a great user. He has over 1K edits, he is always online, and he is well known and liked. Every ones concern seems to be that he is to new to the wiki, but i fail to see why that would make him a bad admin. If anything that would help him because he knows the mindset of all of the new user's, and no where does it say a user has to have been on the wiki for a set amount of time. T C   E   B 00:59, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Having the mindset of a new user is not an admirable trait for an admin to have. The issue is that, to quote Scottie, "being on the wiki for only 2 months is too short a time to grasp the community and be seen as a dependable user." I feel that Dunn will probably become an admin at some point, but I don't think it will be, or should be, all that soon. Imrlybord7 01:24, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I disagree, I feel like Dunn has a very firm grasp of the feel of the communtiy. GenCain.jpg C E B 01:27, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I feel that much of the newer community trusts me, but I think that the "veteran" editors don't know me well enough. Or maybe I'm just way too new. Lt.  Dunn   01:56, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not really about trust; it's more about motive. When a user applies to be an admin a few weeks after their first edits, it leaves a few questions. Why become so admin so soon? Another issue (not specifically for this RfA) is that we've had a significant intake of new sysops, and they're still settling down. I don't see the need to pick fresh faces for adminship considering how many active admins we now have. A lot of things will change down the track, and I'd venture to say that would be the appropriate time to have a more serious go, and perhaps you'll be even more determined to be admin. --Scottie theNerd 08:56, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards Oppose - Sorry, but par Scottie. You're a very good editor, but you've only been here 4 days more than me, (yet you have about 6 times the amount of edits as me, I'm worried if you're over active or if I'm underactive), and users like Imrlybord7 have been here since the beginning and are only syspos now. Also, there's alot of new admins apprearing, and they need to break the ropes aswell. Sorry! Smuff 19:00, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Bord joined in late 2008 and the Wiki was made in mid-2007. That's a bit too big of a time lapse for him to have been here since the beginning. 02:05, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Unnecessary and totally subjective. I have been here for a very long time, relatively speaking, and I was here before this wiki was particularly consequential. Imrlybord7 00:59, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Same, I've actually been using this wiki since late-2007, but not as a registered user... still, I'm with 'Bord that time does not necessarily matter. 11:01, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Smuff, it's me. I am over-active on this wiki. Lt.  Dunn   20:54, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - You are a great editor and user. The only thing standing in your way is, as Imrlybord said, being "Green". I can't support you due to that. It's only a matter of time. Doc.  Richtofen  16:43, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Phew, that's not bad no worries. And Chia, sorry, I havent been here snce the beginning, 17th Jan 2009 I think. Smuff 17:29, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Callofduty4 (3)
Having been on this wiki since December '08, I am one of the most veterened editors on this great wiki to have not achieved bureaucrat status. I believe that I am capable of bureaucrat status just as much as SaintofLosAngelesXD(m) is, if not more so. I know that I have opened this request very soon after the last was closed, but I have been (in my own eyes, at least), an invaluable member of the community, performing routine anti-vandal work, article editing and cleanup and participation in community discussions. I feel that while I do admittedly have my bad points, the good I have done for this wiki far overwhelms the "bad". I am willing to help, as you can probably see, after I offered my skills to the Battlefield Wiki. On that subject, my tour of duty there was cut short due to numerous flame wars which broke out, one concerning the now infamous user, Peter Griffen Boy, after I previously blocked him, he still went on to cause trouble. I cut my visit to the Battlefield Wiki short to maintain my presence on this wiki, after all this is what I consider "my home wiki". This leads me onto my next point, and probably the most important point - influence. With bureaucrat status, I will be able to quickly extinguish flame wars which break out, which I am sorry to say are too frequent on this wiki, with the extra influence of being a bureaucrat. While this may sound power hungry, I will not use the added influence to gain my way in any argument, ever. It must be admitted that if a bureaucrat intervenes, the belligerents are more likely to conform and stop arguing.

So, with these points stated, please have your say. Thank you very much.

Oppose - It is not good form to open another RFA immediately after the previous one has closed. Your previous RFA failed and starting another one immediately after isn't going to change my mind. In addition, previous comments you made in your RFA and others have shown me that you do not respect the free and open nature of the wiki. I'm content that your pragmatism as an admin, but I do not think you come across as a bureaucrat I can trust to discuss issues with, nor do I foresee a positive relationship with other admins due to your displays of arrogance and elitism. I think you are a valuable member of the admin team and, if you had bureaucrat tools you would get a lot done for the wiki. I don't particularly care about who is more "worthy" to become a bureaucrat, rather who should or shouldn't be. Unfortunately, I consider you to be in the latter category. I probably stand alone in my opinion, but it's here. --Scottie theNerd 04:44, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It's bad form to submit another one so soon, regardless of your personal feelings. It is also... disconcerting... that you would expect the community's opinion to change in such a short time. As I have said, you are a great asset to this wiki and an excellent sysop, but I don't see a reason to make you a bureaucrat. Being worthy of bureaucrat status is much more about user interactions than anything. I think I summed it up perfectly with those two quotes that I posted on your talk page a while back. Seriously, reread them a few times. Am I saying that you should never be one? Of course not. I definitely think you are capable of the reform necessary to become one eventually. But at the moment, no. Also, I find that sysop powers are more than enough to end flame wars. Admittedly, I sometimes allow them to go on if I am one of the belligerents, but as a human I reserve the right to indulge once in a while. For that very reason I wouldn't even consider accepting a nomination for cratship at the moment, and probably not even in the near future. But yeah, sysop powers are plenty for peacekeeping purposes. Imrlybord7 05:22, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I do respect the open and free nature of the wiki. As I said before, I think the all editors are equal policy can be easily misinterpreted. Some people do not like the idea of IP editors but I endorse the idea, as occasionally an IP editor comes along who makes a great edit. That good edit far outweighs the amount of easily undone vandalism by IP editors. I do agree that I can be arrogant, but in no way do I believe I am the nicest admin out there, but conversely in no way do I believe I am the worst admin out there. I've shown the capacity to work with other admins, and I'll continue working with them just fine. The reason I submitted another RFB so soon is because my last one wasn't even submitted by me, I was nominated by another user, therefore I didn't get to illustrate my points. On a different note, I was slightly concerned when Saint was made a bureaucrat - he's not anywhere near as a active as other admins, not just necessarily me. 10:56, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm slightly concerned that you want to be made a bureaucrat so eagerly. It doesn't matter who nominates you for an RFB; a failed request holds the same weight regardless. You had ample opportunity to present yourself: nothing stopped you from posting comments during your RFB and those comments were full of praise for yourself and your seniority above others. It wasn't that long ago that you said you considered yourself worthier to become a bureaucrat that certain others. It's easy to put a spin on your words overnight, but it'll take more time to convince me that you're honest and legitimate in the manner in which you conduct daily activity.


 * It's been barely a day since the RFB closed and the sentiments that were expressed in your previous one will not be different here. Your lack of patience doesn't convince me that you'll be suitable for a higher position. As I said above, I'm quite content with your responsibility and handling of your Sysop position at the moment. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and believing that you want to be a bureaucrat for the betterment of the wiki, but your stance on issues such as policy and your superiority complex does not give me that confidence. You don't need to be a bureaucrat to stop conflicts, and I do not think your influence is the kind a bureaucrat should have. --Scottie theNerd 12:25, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - In my opinion, I think that Callofduty4 has the awareness to become a bureaucrat because he is a great help to the wiki. When he became an administrator, he treated the position very well and respectful. He can do the same with this job. He has had a lot of flame wars with Peter Griffen Boy, which everyone else thinks he should be banned for a while now. He shouldn't be one just yet but in a while he should. He really deserves this position. Also, a while back, I voted for COD4 to become a bureaucrat and it had some support, some neutral and some oppose, particulary Imrlybord and Scottie. I am finally understanding everything because I'm becoming an experienced user but this should be really good for him. 11:28, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, but opening a new RFA just after Chia archives it is just silly, and actually saying you're better than another editor in your actual RFA is just immature. You're a good editor, and a very good sysop, but if you keep trying to do this you're going to lose the respect of the wiki. Isn't being a sysop good enough? Even Imrlybord is saying that. This RFA is just going to get opposition from alot of people, sorry. Next time try waiting a week or two after this one finishes. The reason Saint was made a crat was because, as fun as it is doing it, he doesn't mock those who aren't an asset to the wiki. Sysops can ban just as easily, and Sysops have just as much respect. You'll resent me for this with my low edit count like, and you're a good editor, one I'd happily admit that too, but activity doesn't mean quality, sorry. Smuff 12:10, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Smuff, You mentioned Chiafriend12 specifically. It doesn't matter who closes an RFA. An average user could have closed it with a good enough reason and I would have accepted it. Also, I agree being sysop is good, but I'd like to go that bit further and achieve bureaucrat status. Also, you stated that Saint doesn't mock people who are an asset to the wiki. I don't know when I have mocked a perfectly good user, unless you're now calling vandals an asset to the wiki. Also, stating a fact is not immature. I'm sorry, but the only good statement you made was "Isn't being a sysop good enough", and it seems that you are only opposing me because I opened this RFB to soon. Scottie, you say my lack of patience does not convince you of me achieving a higher position, but I can equally say that your poor judgement, showing from how you see me, does not convince me of you ever achieving a higher position. I do not have a superiority complex, I do not believe I am superior to anyone in any way, but I do believe I am more worthy and deserving of bureaucrat-ship than others. Back to Smuff, you stated that I have been in many flame wars with PGB. I have never been involved in one, ever. I honestly cannot appreciate anything you said because it makes no sense. The only time I was involved was when I intervened and took action against PGB. Also, if you look at the User:JouninOfDespair mini-flame war then you will see that I pretty much fixed everything by giving him a chance to apologize. So if that does not display respect for editors, even those who cause trouble, I don't know what does. 13:16, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * But it does matter who closed it, because the position that person holds is the same position you want. An average user does not have the authority to close an RfA. Only a bureaucrat can close an RfA, and Chiafriend was, at the time, the only active bureaucrat; thus Smuff's specific reference to Chia holds no connotation.
 * And while you're confident in saying that you don't display disrespect for other editors, it seems you're easily comfortable with the notion of accusing me of "poor judgement". I'm sorry, but if you're differentiating between "more worthy and deserving" and not considering yourself to be "better", then you'll have to put up with my "poor judgement".
 * Being a bureaucrat is not an achievement and should not be treated as such. If that's all you want to become a bureaucrat for, I do question your motives. I would keep this discussion impersonal, but if you want to single me out and discredit my opinion, then we'll do it this way. --Scottie theNerd 13:31, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I picked you out specifically because you seem to be the biggest threat. You seem, to me at least, to have poor judgement because you doubt my potential. I do not want to become a bureaucrat for the sake of it, I would like to become a bureaucrat for the added influence that comes with it. I've made clear that I plan to use that influence (assuming I become a bureaucrat) for good and as you say the betterment of the wiki, and I promise to never use it to get my own way in anything. I did not plan for you to take offence in what I said about your judgement, I hold nothing against you for what you think of me, and as future bureaucrat material I know it is necessary to respect people's views, assuming they make sense (/cough Smuff /cough). I respect your views, Scottie, and I'm happy that your taking such a great interest in my RFB. We can't let this debate become personal. 13:46, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry about the not making sence there. You are crat material, but you just need to wait a wee bit longer, opening a new RFA immediatly after doesn't make much sence. Also, I never referenced PGB. But being a beaurocrat for influence is bad, you become a beaurocrat for the health of the wiki. Becoming one would require such responsiblity and neutrality, even towards vandals, Chia pointed that out in your previous RFA. I have never seen Chia or Saint laugh at anyone, even an unregestered vandal. I'm not holding that against you, but it is a fair point. Smuff 14:35, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Question - (Well, they do it on other wikis, so why not here?) Why is it that you believe another bureaucrat is necessary? Especially since Saint was recently given 'crat powers and your RfB also recently closed. I'm only curious and will consider voting after your response. Thanks. 16:38, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I just think it's wrong to refer to another user's success and say that you deserve it more. Poketape Talk 18:40, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Poketape, it's true though. Bovell, I believe another bureaucrat is necessary because it is a good idea to have at least 2 active bureaucrats - Chiafriend isn't consistently active. I believe that the presence of 2 bureaucrats will make users think twice about starting something, because as I've said a lot of influence comes with bureaucrat-ship. Also, I believe in a ratio of admins to bureaucrats, but that's a bit OCD and not a very important reason. 22:02, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

DevilWarrior112 (3)
This is the third time and I hope "Third Time Lucky". It happened to Maj.Gage and I believe it will happen to me. I have been contribuating to Doc.Richtofen's Crimson Eagle story, reached 2,000 edits and been a lot more active with the community. Some experienced users already have told me that it will happen but not at the moment like Imrlybord 7, Callofduty4, Poketape and Chiafriend12. They're all administrators and have had all the comments about them. I think it is my time now to go for it again. I have also been on talk pages and have recently tricked out my home page. I have been more active in blogs and talking with users about stuff. I have the confidence to become an admin.

Neutral - Need more information on how you would be of help to the wiki as a sysop and why you should be made in. Being involved in blog posting and writing stories or roleplays is not an indication of suitability for adminship. --Scottie theNerd 12:45, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, you've been on the wiki longer than I have, so I wouldn't call myself an experienced editor. --Scottie theNerd 12:46, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said in your previous RfA, blog activity doesn't relate to being an admin. I'd like to hear about more specific things that you have done that indicate your suitability. --Scottie theNerd 12:53, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Scottie theNerd. Doc.  Richtofen  13:58, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Scottie, I would consider you a very knowledgeable and intelligent editor. Doc.  Richtofen  13:58, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards support - You're a good editor, but judging by the RFAs you don't know any of the wikians on this too well, sorry (For example, you said PGB would make a good admin with a bit of time, that clearly didn't happen). Also Scottie, you're probobly one of the smartest people on this, a very experianced editor indeed. Smuff 14:09, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - When I first ran for Admin, Bord told me that blog/forum edits dont count towards my RFA. Thats completly true, and that is what is happening here. Getting PGB to leave the Wiki will not make you a knight in shining armor. That is just rude and mean to force somebody off the internet. I will admit that you have been trying very hard, but I dont see anything THAT distinguished in your little paragraph.

Neutral I think you'd make a good admin, and all the recent activity has shown that, but I still think you need time. Poketape Talk 18:38, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - You constantly act like you have authority when you do not and the quality of your mainspace edits is only average. To be honest, I would not expect to see you become an admin anytime soon. But as always, I have to say that I am not trying to imply that it will never happen or anything like that. Hard work, patience, and a diminished sense of self-importance will get you there. Imrlybord7 18:47, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Griever0311
I nominate Griever as an admin because he's got over 2000 edits, over 500 of them main-space. He has experience as a Marine in the current Middle-East conflict. He is very polite, knowledgeable, and intelligent. He is very well-known, and likable especially among the senior editors and Sysops. He has shown that he would use the power responsibly.  "Master Kenobi  20:22, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as nominator.  "Master Kenobi  20:22, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Could not agree more. He is incredibly responsible, polite and intelligent and I challenge anyone who says anything else. Always have a good time with him. Especially on my Aftermath blog.AdvancedRookie 20:24, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet Needs some more time. I don't think you've been here long enough. Poketape Talk 20:43, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Switch to neutral I see what everybody's saying. Poketape Talk 23:08, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Easily one of the most eligible users for sysopship. Imrlybord7 20:46, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He's mature, responsible, knows what he's doing, and respectful. Definitely a worthy user for adminship.--WouldYouKindly 20:50, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I can not say anything negative about you Griever, (if your reading this) you are the model Marine and the model Admin. I picture you as a bcat later on. Maybe spring of next year you should try. (If this gets approved.) Slowrider7 21:02, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per WYK. Doc.  Richtofen  21:12, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per AR and WYK. Cpt. Z  21:31, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per WYK. Lt.  Dunn   21:35, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per WYK. ScotlandTheBest 21:46, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support- Griever should be an admin, he's more knowledgable and reasonable than any of us, and he's a good friend of mine on the wiki. Codfan

Support - Per John Boy. I mean, uh, WYK. 23:20, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Although Griever has not been on the Wiki for longer than approximately three months, he has shown that in a limited time he can achieve a great amount of good. His experience time might normally be a factor, however he has accumulated as many edits as several administrators, offering great advice, and first-hand knowledge in a friendly fashion.  "Master Kenobi Good editing. 00:15, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Hey guys, it's me here. I don't know if I have to formally accept, but if do, I'll go ahead and say I'd be more than happy to serve as an admin for your community. This Wiki's become a real hobby of mine, it's got a great userbase, and I'd like assist the team already in place in helping keep it that way. I'm usually on here several times a day, and I cruise around here a lot when I'm at work and time an operations permit, so I'm pretty set to keep tabs on vandals and quality control at night (3r shift for the win) when other admins might not be active. Just throwing in my piece. So anyway, exercise your democratic franchise and rock the vote! --   Griever0311   00:29, March 22, 2010 (UTC)