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.

Icepacks
I hereby nominate Icepacks for the position of sysop. If I didn't know any better I would think he was an admin already. He is extremely intelligent, professional, kind, polite, helpful, and active. That pretty much sums it up. Imrlybord7 20:09, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Going to be away for about a week. If you pass a verdict, feel free to close it if it's negative. If not, please keep this running. Cheers, Icepac K s 23:26, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Imrlybord7 20:09, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Impeccable record. Excellent editor all round. 20:15, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per the two above support's.  Doc.   Richtofen  20:24, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Because... because... he's... cool? (Per Imrlybord7) - EightOhEight  22:40, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He's a pretty smart hombre/ballerhoss Jeffnickers 22:43, March 23, 2010 (UTC) User lacks required mainspace edits. Imrlybord7 23:56, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

oh haha, sorry, didn't read the mainspace part, my bad.Jeffnickers 21:27, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I completely agree with Callofduty4. 00:56, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. 00:25, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - One of the most active users currently - racks up edits all day long, patrols for vandals, and is a good user. 🇨🇩

Support - Per all, and I'm kind of confused as to why this is his RfA, like Imrlybord7 I would have figured he was a sysop. Surely a user to aspire to, along the levels (in my opinion) of the aforementioned admin, and Griever0311. "Master Kenobi Good editing. 02:21, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Icepacks has shown in his edits that he has proper knowledge of how wikis work. I am certain that giving him an upgrade in user powers will allow him to contribute even greater to the wiki all around 20:05, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone else. - Braden 0.0 11:19, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone.

Comment - I think the vote is unanimous. CHIAAAAA! Doc.  Richtofen  19:42, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - RFAs don't get closed until they've been out for at least 14 days. And don't forget about Saint. Imrlybord7 23:41, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

E.TALE
I, Cpl. Dunn, hereby nominate E.TALE for the positon of sysop. I feel he greatly deserves it and has done great work here. Lt. Dunn (Talk) 01:48, April 2, 2010 (UTC) P.S. This is NOT an April Fools joke. Lt. Dunn (Talk) 01:50, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As nominator. Lt. Dunn (Talk) 01:48, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Great User, great Contributions W567123daniel 01:52, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - although he's made good edits, he needs more experience, and we really don't need any more admins at this time, Griever just got his powers.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 02:09, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Neutral Leaning Oppose - I review him a bit, and he's got great edits, but the fact is that we've got plenty of Admins, until someone tells me why we need another I'm opposing.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 03:52, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Good editor, but that isn't nearly enough to warrant adminship. I could list the other important aspects of an administrator, but I would just be repeating myself. Looking through old RFAs in the archives is always a good idea. Imrlybord7 03:55, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - From what I've seen, E.TALE is a helpful editor and most of his useful contributions have been fixing minor errors and adding wikilinks. However, I haven't really seen him around in larger wiki discussions, and the lack of involvement in policy discussion and writing is what's lacking in this RfA. Also, I'm generally opposed to RfAs that fail to provide evidence that the candidate suits the criteria. Saying that someone "deserves" and has done "great work" does not provide any grounds on which we can be critical. I'd expect that nominations be at least as detailed as Callofduty4's latest RfA. --Scottie theNerd 04:07, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Imrlybord7 & Scottie theNerd

Oppose - Looking through past archives of admins always helps what is the next step to help you become an admin and known to the community. We have had many admins this year including Juan, Griever, Richtofen, Eight and Bord. You will get there but you just need to wait for a little while more. 21:47, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Change to full Oppose - per my comments above. I don't see him as an admin.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 20:51, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Callofduty4 (4)
Hi all,

As most of you know I've ran for bureaucrat 3 times before. I realize I have made several mistakes in those past 3 runs - most prominently comparing myself to another user. I've realized that was a mistake and had I deserved bureaucrat-ship more than him the community would have decided so. I plan to rectify those mistakes in this run.

I will, however, be sticking to my main point which I hope most of you remember is influence. Admit it, being a bureaucrat gives you more influence. As I've explained in my last RfB I plan to use that influence purely for the good of the wiki, never for my own personal gain. I am going to use a user as an example where this extra influence could be useful: it seems PGB looks up to me, as is evident from his constant messaging on other wikis when he is blocked here. The added influence could make him understand why he is blocked and maybe even clean up his act.

One thing I also did not convey in my past RfBs - I am perfectly content with being an admin, and you do not need to make me a bureaucrat to make me happy. I am very proud of being an admin on such a great wiki. However, I do believe that my work could be further extended with the added influence and tools that come with bureaucrat-ship.

I truly think I am up to the job and I would like to hear more of your opinions. I do realize some of you will still vote oppose with the regular reasons but I will accept the votes and use them as critical assessment which I can work with to improve myself further. Thank you. 15:22, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Leaning Support - You definatly deserve it, but here are my views on 'crats. We only need two. What can a 'crat do that a sysop couldn't? Grant other users powers. As far as I am concerened, we only need one 'crat to do that. Then we need a backup 'crat. Incase the original 'crat goes inactive. Then the second 'crat shoulld appoint another 'crat. So again, you deserve it, but I don't feel we need another 'crat. Lt. Dunn (Talk) 16:39, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You definately deserve it, and I think you can become further helpful with extra powers. Your commitment to this wiki is outstanding. I think now you are ready. Doc.  Richtofen  17:02, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I'm not a big fan of people who repeatedly go through the RfA/RfB process every month, and I was hoping that Callofduty4 would hold out for just a bit longer. However, Callofduty4 has shown perseverance and dedication as well a very high capacity to deal with wiki-wide issues. He is by far the most active admin and interacts with many of the editors. While he does have disagreements and does spit out at users now and then, he has shown through his numerous contributions and conversations that he respects users and is able to handle the huge issues relating to policy and changes to the site that other admins tend to leave alone. In short, Callofduty4 is the sort of person I can trust to get things done. --Scottie theNerd 17:33, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Couldn't have said it better myself. Doc.  Richtofen  19:02, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support- Per Scottie theNerd's comment. Callofduty4 is an excellent user, he makes good edits, has been here for some time now, and he helps keep the wiki in order. I believe he deserves this 100%. E.TALE Barracks 19:50, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - First off, per Dunn. Secondly, I don't really think you are ready yet. Don't ask me why, I just feel like that. Maybe next month...sorry, man!  Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 19:54, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Dunn, there is a deeper meaning to bureaucrat-ship than just giving users powers. As I have outlined in my opening paragraphs there is influence that comes with it. Doc. Richtofen, E.TALE and Scottie thank you very much for your very encouraging and supportive votes. They mean a lot to me. Much appreciated. 22:11, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose You unblocked PGB twice for no reason when he obviously did something wrong. I think comparing yourself to another user in your last RfB is unacceptable. Both of these things show the problems with you becomng a 'crat. Poketape Talk 22:59, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - While Cod4's past RfB's may have shown immaturity, this one most certainly does not. That coupled with his personal apology to me gives me faith that Cod4 has gotten past his feelings of self deserving, and I would be happy to have him as a bureaucrat. It'll be nice not to have as much weight on my shoulders. 23:10, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Support - I still don't think we need another 'crat but you deserve it to much for me to say no.  Lt. Dunn  Talk  23:14, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards Oppose - I personally believe that anyone has the potential to influence other people without being given a higher position of authority. There's no doubt you gain an immeasurable amount of respect from other users as a bureaucrat, but one can be just as influential with words rather than power. That's not to say that alone should warrant putting an upgrade in user powers on hold, but here's what's got me. During the recent, well, scandal with PGB, you went against the blockage decision of three other sysops when he had clearly crossed the line. As much as I appreciate you for looking at both sides of the story, it was unnecessary, and could have resulted in even more turmoil. Your eagerness to become a bureaucrat is admirable, but recent events have left me to wonder if you are ready yet. 00:10, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards Oppose - Callofduty4 you know I have an incredible amount of respect for you, and I know you're a great guy, but I honestly see little reason for another bureaucrat at this point. I will be more than happy to support this if the Wiki grows, and subsequently more Admins are elected (which would be the result of CoD7's release).  Darthkenobi0 Talk 03:11, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I have seen no community presence in you besides to occasional Talk Page edit. Right now, Saint and Chia are the only B-Crats we need. Especially after the whole "Unban PGB" mess. Now I respect you so mutch and I have nothing personal against you CoD4, but a B-Crat is a big step. I really havent seen any improvements from the last RfB. Slowrider7 06:04, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Besides, who thinks theyre a hero for doing something (Negative or positive) about PGB? Everyone is acting like he's a dragon, and whoever slays him first is obv the god of the Wiki. Btw, like you said, "you do not need to make me a bureaucrat to make me happy." Slowrider7 06:04, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - A couple of issues have been raised so far: The first was something that gave me doubts over the appropriateness in launching another RfB. The prudent side of me would have waited for another month for it to die down, and I had already decided that I would support Callofduty4 on his next RfB due to his generally positive conduct since the last RfB. It was hard for me to follow the same line with a premature RfB, but I do think that if we look beyond PGB, Callofduty4 is an asset to most other aspects of the wiki. In fairness, in my opinion very few admins handled the PGB incident maturely and professionally, and accusing Callofduty4 for being immature in this and other events is not an accurate reflection of the challenges faced by the admin team as a whole.
 * 1) The PGB incident.
 * 2) Too many 'crats.

Secondly, while we do have a healthy ratio of bureaucrats to sysops, I still feel that there are many things that need a bureaucrat to step in and handle that are still left open. For example, there are numerous discussions in the War Room that need closing; various policies to be revised or removed; dozens of AfDs that need to be closed and archived; and other site-wide improvements that no one seems to want to take responsibility for. Granted, a Sysop could handle a lot of these, but I get the impression that no one really knows what to do or is bold enough to do so, and that's when we need another 'crat to issue the directive or do it himself. Chiafriend, for the most part, is content with letting discussions and debates sort themselves out; Saint himself has stated that it takes the load off his shoulders. That should be sufficient reason to get a third bureaucrat to get the magic number of 3 to balance things out. Besides, I'd rather have 3 'crats that settle in now instead of waiting until COD7 to hastily promote people up. --Scottie theNerd 06:06, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? 03:35, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Support - Per Scottie.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 06:14, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - After just a few minutes of talking with him in IRC, he quelled every doubt that I had about him. Other than that, I think Scottie summed it up quite nicely. Imrlybord7 07:31, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You took my advice about your last RfB, that shows you respect the "pro-noob" editor. (Sorry about stealing your phrase Bord). Anyways, I can tell from your RfB you have clearly taken the last RfB into account, you realised Saint was picked fairly, and this time you aren't bring activity and mainspace count into it. The only blemishes I can see are unblocking PGB and maybe that little spit about Scottie on Griever's RfA. If you do become a 'crat though, you need to be super-active. Chia is the conservative 'crat who tends to be in favour of COD:G, and I haven't seen Saint in action (I'm not in his timezone). I think we need a 'crat who can act on his instinct, like Scottie said, you get things done. Also, I will admit I'd like to see an admin I would refer to as a friend be a 'crat. But 3 is the magic number, and I think you'll be the last for a long time to come. Smuff 11:04, April 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Chia does not support COD:G, at least not in the way you are referring to. Imrlybord7 08:31, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

 Neutral,-  While you may be an exelent editor you, a) unblocked PGB b) you seem way to cocky, and per alot of other thing people said already. T C   E   B 15:12, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - Great guy and all, but this RfB is manipulative, and there's a better candidate in my book.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 20:32, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Would you like to elaborate on your reasoning? Because I don't see what you mean. Also, who is the better candidate? You've spilled the beans, now you might as well say who he is. 15:32, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Darthkenobi0 was referring to his nomination of EightOhEight for bureaucrat. If you missed it, don't worry. I never saw it open either :3 --Scottie theNerd 16:03, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Strong Support- Recantly me and COD4 had a disscussion, and between that and reviewing his work i now fully support him as a strong, kind, inteligent user (please excuse any spelling errors). T C   E   B 20:39, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you crossed out Darthkenobi's votes, and could you change the vote count appropriately? --Scottie theNerd 20:43, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it was a mistake - I fixed the crossings out. 20:48, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - He is an overall great guy. He helped me out getting a sig and assigning it and put up with a hell of a lot of nooby questions. I would strongly support him as being an admin. Your EMP is ready, The Man Of Iron! 20:57, April 4, 2010 (UTC)  Much appreciated, TheManOfIron, but you need 50 mainspace edits to vote. 21:01, April 4, 2010 (UTC)