Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Crazy sam10 (2)

I am nominating Crazy sam10 for adminship:

This is Sam’s 2nd RfA. After he put forward his first one, somewhat rapidly, he was able to get a lot of constructive criticism on how he could improve to become an admin.

I feel since this time he has been able to improve on these things, he has done so firstly via his chat mod status, whilst not directly improved upon it, he has had still no complaints arise from it (which is rather astonishing considering he is one of the most veteran chatmods we have). He is routinely undoing bans which have expired, and recently has decided to clean up lingering bans which should not still be in effect.


 * Sam's log of user rights changes
 * An example of Sam dutifully warning a user of being lagbanned, and notifying when the ban has been removed

Secondly he has put plenty of his points forward in the War Room, including setting up several forums of his own where he sought community consensus on various things. This shows a participation in the community and also a will to improve the wiki through improvements made via community consensus.


 * Sam's forum edits
 * A forum which Sam put forward, which ended up successful

Thirdly he has improved his edit count, whilst many of his mainspace edits are simple vandal checks/minor edits his filespace edits are what I feel have contributed the most to helping the wiki, mainly in the addition of images and adding transparency to existing images, an example of this is the World at War Pack-a-Punch weapons page, and more recently on some of the attachment pages as well. Expanding on images he has also done a lot of work about images, including his forum about image effects, and templates for image quality and bad images.

Sam will make a good addition to the admin team for the reasons provided above, and also with the fact that Sam already knows how to administrate a wiki - he is an admin on Nukapedia as well. Not to mention, Sam is on regularly at a time where there are not many admins on - around 11am - 4pm GMT, which is currently only really kept up by Raven's wing, and while Raven does a fine job, it comes without a doubt that another admin who can be on at this time will be of huge benefit.
 * Sam's editcount, showing good edits across the board
 * Sam's mainspace edits
 * Sam's file edits
 * Sam's forum about image effects

Looking at his personality, Sam is a friendly person who is calm and professional in his demeanour, and is always willing to help people with any problems they might have. In other words, he has the mindset ideal for an administrator.

So please consider these points, if you thought this was TL;DR then too bad, if you read through and looked at all the links, thank you for your patience! Please leave your thoughts and votes below.


 * I was told I'd need to say whether I accept this or not, which I do. 00:05, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  00:00, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I feel that the Call of Duty Wikia will greatly improve from the adition of this user, and will benefit all. 00:04, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I always tend to forget Sam isn't a Admin anyway so i think Sam should be a Admin so Per Nom.
 * Not really a good reason why. Please specify 00:17, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a reason to me. 01:16, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Per nom added at 00:42, March 25, 2012 (UTC) 00:08, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Users need to give a reason. 00:17, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Per X is a reason. 01:16, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I originally had no reason, until added later (which I now have specified) 04:50, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  00:15, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)  00:30, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) The well written RfA swayed me as it provided very good reasons as to why Sam should be an admin.  00:35, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I believe Sam and the the wiki will benefit from him becoming an Admin, and has seen he is worthy of Adminship. Otherwise, per Argorrath. Hiptechboy 01:00, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Commander Shepard: "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!" 02:25, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Shotrocket6 02:36, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7)   02:46, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8)   05:06, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) -- 05:25, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) -- 05:25, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)   04:33, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * What does IRC have to do with being an admin? 04:38, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * IRC=/= how to qualify a person for adminship.04:41, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * An admin was deranked because of an issue on IRC, so it should matter. 04:50, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * If it worked like that, most admins would have a desysop forums up their arses, and that is not the case.-04:58, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, what? So does that mean we desysop Poketape because he's not on IRC? Since when does being on IRC even matter? As per what the person I thought was Shot said, how do you even know if you're not even in there? 04:58, March 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * ....yes, let's ban admins because they don't use IRC. If you actually looked at my vote instead of jump to conclusions, you would know that I said he is good as he is now. I simply recommend he get more experience in the area of IRC. No, I don't use IRC all day, it's just my two cents that he could use more experience on it. Of he's using now, alright, good. 05:15, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I did read it, and you're not granting him a vote simply because you don't see him on IRC which you are rarely on. Also, you never explained what 'good' meant, is he a good chatmod, user, editor? Please explain your votes so you don't end up sounding like you don't know what you're talking about, which is clearly the case now. Overall, you can't blame someone for something you do, which is just plain wrong and overall you just end up looking like an ass. 05:22, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides Sam shouldn't just be looked at his Chat?IRC service as his edits, and contribution is the biggest contributing factor to why he should be admin IMO05:03, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what? Even so, Sam is on IRC all the time...PotatOS Wanna Test?My Own Test Chambers 04:39, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand by my vote nonetheless. 04:50, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * How can you stand by it if Dan just killed it.-05:10, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * No words can't express, and with all due respect, how stupid and baseless the point in this vote is.-04:44, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I love how you say "With all due respect" before that. Again, I stand by my vote. 04:50, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * What goddamn point? 1.- Poketape nor CoaZ nor Shotrocket6 are in IRC all the frikkin' day, and they are exceptional admins. 2.-You are not over IRC all the goddamn day, so you don't either know how he needs more IRC experience. And number 3.- Sam is always at IRC, so try to search up more information instead of basing your votes into baseless assumptions.-04:56, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * How about instead of pointlessly raging at me over my vote, you explain yourself nicely? 05:08, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the three points I just mentioned fuckin' enough?.-05:10, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is point enough, but you can explain yourself nicer than just blindly and pointlessly raging. 05:20, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Metl, you must explain how (in your eyes) not being on IRC enough can inhibit his ability to be a good admin, Shotrocket6 is almost never in IRC yet he is often called the "Community Admin". Please explain your reasoning. 04:54, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not being on IRC enough means there is a lack of communication between this admin and the other admins. I never said it would inhibit his abilities as an admin, it would just be a barrier in case an admin or another user wants to get a hold of him, and wants a response not 12 hours from then, but 3 minutes from then. 05:08, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a thing called Chat...And...There's always the talk page...Revolutionary I know... 05:11, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * You barely read any of that post, didn't you? 05:20, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5mLjKI968g 05:12, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Explain. 05:22, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll explain Metl. You're being a fucking idiot (and no, I don't give a shit if that violates UTP, I'm trying to get the message we're all trying to get through your head). 05:26, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * MY HERO 05:27, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone give this man a medal.-05:28, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, what's the point you're trying to make here? You're wrong - Sam is on IRC all the time. And how would you even be able to tell, you're hardly on IRC yourself. If you're going to vote blindly then I would suggest not voting - or not voting blindly and asking somebody who is on IRC all the time who can actually provide evidence about Sam's activity on IRC. -- 05:13, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is with my response to Smil. 05:20, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only is Sam on IRC a large amount of the time (I possess logs to prove it), there's no reason someone needs to go on IRC to be an administrator. It's like saying I need to learn how to fight in hand-to-hand combat if I want to become a software developer. There's no correlation between the two. 05:17, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Read my original vote for reference. 05:22, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * You also have yet to acknowledge that you're wrong. -- 05:24, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * And, Sactage addressed your vote, stop telling us to refer to your vote. As you said, if you actually read what we were writing, you would know. ''05:27, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, so I am wrong. I am still staying neutral on this. 05:28, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * If your wrong and your reasons aren't valid...then you need a new reason to stay neutral.05:30, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * WHY?! You just acknowledged that he was perfect for it! WHAT IS WRONG THIS TIME  05:31, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to provide a reasoning as to why you're neutral - otherwise you're vote is invalid. All you seem to be doing is being neutral to prove some sort of point to us, of which you're doing nothing for the candidate and pretty much ruining this rfa. -- 05:36, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * WHY?! You just acknowledged that he was perfect for it! WHAT IS WRONG THIS TIME  05:31, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to provide a reasoning as to why you're neutral - otherwise you're vote is invalid. All you seem to be doing is being neutral to prove some sort of point to us, of which you're doing nothing for the candidate and pretty much ruining this rfa. -- 05:36, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

While his vote was a unbased, uninformed and ignorant, there is no need to attack him. 05:44, March 25, 2012 (UTC)