Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship

For another page abbreviated as "COD:RFA", see Call of Duty Wiki:Requested Featured Articles.

For the page for admin task requests, see Call of Duty Wiki:Administrator Requests.

The Requests for Adminship page (often abbreviated as RfA) is used to nominate users for a position on the administrative team, either sysop or bureaucrat (Requests for Bureaucrat flags are known as RfBs). Users may be nominated by another user, or they may nominate themselves. New administrators are often needed as the community at the Call of Duty Wiki expands. They also may be needed to take the place of formerly active administrators who no longer contribute to the wiki.

Requests are generally closed and have a consensus determined two weeks (or one if the vote is unanimous) after the nomination. However, if the nominator or nominee chooses to withdraw the nomination or the nominee declines, or the nomination is very poorly written (or there is none) it may be closed immediately.

Requirements for adminship
To qualify to be an administrator, you must meet this minimum set of requirements: Note that this is a minimum requirement; for higher chances of success the user should be well known, have a good track record at undoing vandalism, should have a decent amount of mainspace edits and contribution to community discussions, and should not just be coming out a ban. Also, the nomination should state why the nominee would need the administrator tools; simply being a well known user with a good history does not necessarily mean one should become an admin.
 * Have a record of civil and mature behavior
 * Have contributed to the wiki
 * Be active

Regulations for voting

 * Keep your cool. RfAs occasionally host flame wars. Remember to not lose your cool when in an argument. You can openly disagree with others, but act maturely when doing so. Disrespecting other users can earn you a warning or a block and it makes your reputation suffer.
 * Be descriptive. Please give some form of reasoning when voting. Leaving only a vote template and a signature is not recommended and does not help the consensus, as you are not telling why the nominee should or should not be an admin/bureaucrat.
 * No self-support. While nominators can and should support another user they nominated, do not vote for yourself when you are the nominee.

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.
 * Extremely Strong Support - An extremely positive vote.
 * Weak Support - A positive vote, but the voter has not ruled out oppose.
 * 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.
 * Strong Oppose - A very negative vote.
 * Weak Oppose - A negative vote, but the voter has not ruled out support.
 * Not yet - A negative vote saying the nominee would not be fit for the role at the current moment, but most likely later.
 * Comment - A comment.
 * : - a comment made in response to another comment can simply be indented.
 * Question - A sort of comment that asks a question. (Ex. What would you do with your tools?)

There are associated templates to go with most of the vote types above when voting:


 * Support creates
 * Strong Support creates
 * Extremely Strong Support creates
 * Weak Support creates
 * Neutral creates
 * Neutral towards Support creates
 * Neutral towards Oppose creates
 * Oppose creates
 * Strong Oppose creates
 * Weak Oppose creates
 * Not Yet creates Not yet
 * Comment creates
 * Question creates

Nominations
break=no prefix=Project:Requests for Adminship/ preload=Template:RfA buttonlabel=Nominate a user