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 - 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)