Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Redskin-26 (2)

Hello all, I'd like to nominate Redskin for adminship. In his seven months here on the wiki, he has accomplished a great deal.


 * 1) His edit count shows he is dedicated to the betterment of the wiki as a whole. He is active in all namespaces and is regularly found licencing images, categorising pages correctly and generally helping out in the mainspace.
 * 2) As a chat moderator, he has proven to be a reliable and trustworthy member of the community. On numerous occasions he has caught sockpuppets in Chat, but has had to ask an administrator to take further action; with sysop tools he could have done it quicker and more efficiently. Similarly, he has been entrusted with rollback and custodian rights, the effectiveness of which he could enhance with the extra sysop tools (deleting unneeded images and protecting pages, respectively).
 * 3) Redskin is also active in other aspects of the community, particularly in the War Room. Recently, he showed great composure and kept a level head where others didn't in a certain controversial topic.
 * 4) With our current administrative team at only twelve active users, and an ever increasing community size with the release of new content every month, it seems logical to have another user to reinforce the current ones. In addition, I will be inactive for quite some time, meaning Redskin (with a similar level of activity to me) could fill the void I would leave.

In addition to all of these points, Redskin also has a clean block record and a few minor policy infractions early in his time here (ironically his first was from me for not licensing images). I hope that you see him as the same candidate that I do and vote appropriately. 00:10, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

I accept this well written nomination, and I would also like to tell Elmo that his time here has been well appropriated and that I hope he enjoys his inactivity and personal time away from the wiki. 00:38, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As nominator.  00:10, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) He's a great user, is largely active, and he's very nice to the community. If anyone should be made an admin, it should be him. Commander Shepard: "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken! 00:18, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) A great aid to the wiki, he's very trusted and is for the betterment of the wiki. 00:21, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) A fine editor and friend on this Wiki. Charcoal121 00:26, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Per the previous nubs. 00:31, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) He's a hardworking user and I think that if any one should be an admin, he should.
 * 7) Per nominator.  03:31, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Per nom.  03:41, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) I agree with Elmo and everybody else, and Red has helped me with certain things. 03:46, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Per all. 15:43, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) I feel that those chastising Redskin for making those mistakes fail to realise that he has learnt from those experiences and improved considerably as a result. It shows in his attitude for one. For this reason and those that Eltomo wrote, I consider him trustworthy enough for administration tool access and am strongly supporting his request.  16:08, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Per all, especially Eltomo and Panzer.  16:20, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Redskin is an excellent Wiki contributor, hard worker, and an all around good guy.  18:24, March 4, 2012
 * 14) Yes, I feel that now is the time for Red to be granted admin tools. He really deserves it. As per JJ and Elmo. 22:09, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Adminship is not an award :|. One does not deserve adminship. 01:01, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * So 2k+ edits on mainspace alone and being a hardworking chat moderator who does, to the best of his ability, contribute to the wiki greatly is NOT dedicated in your eyes? You really should reconsider that thought. And don't even try rebutting me with petty semantics. 13:28, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * What he means that despite Redskin's, or any other good candidate's contributions adminship is not deserved. 14:21, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, Quality over Quantity. Second of all, you didn't make any ground breaking, amazing, pedanatic rebuttal that deserves to not get a rebuttal, and saying that I would only offer "petty semantics" is rather offensive. An you obviously didn't read what I wrote carefully, as what you wrote for your reason of support makes it sound like you're supporting him getting a medal. 23:44, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep personal arguments out of this, argue the RfA, not each other. But yes, adminship is not deserved. Maybe that was just an error in the wording of the support vote, though. 23:53, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. Edited OP as seen fit. 15:05, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Per my reason in the comments.-- 02:19, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I feel Redskin has contributed greatly to the community and is able to use his current powers responsibly and correctly as is. I would completely trust him with the tools of an admin to help keep the wiki a better place. +Per All.  02:33, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3)  Now is the perfect time Anthony can be admin. His spectacular contribution to this wiki is comparable to many admins themseleves and can match or even beat many more normal editors' contributions. Due to his contributions, he has made himself a spot to become an admin. 02:38, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I believe he is ready for adminship. He has proven to be a valuable asset to this community in the mere months hes been here Qw3rty!
 * 5) Per all!!!  13:35, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Shotrocket6 10:44, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * "He has always been one to ask questions when he was unsure of something and he seems to double check things before he takes action, which is something even some of our long-standing administrators don't even do." Because we don't need to. I'm perfectly fine with him double-checking before he does something, but that doesn't mean he can keep going through situations of which he's no sure of himself. "I have no doubt in Redskin's ability to adapt quickly to becoming an administrator and to react progressively to the changing environment about him." wat
 * "...his minor infractions are just that: minor. Those opposing cannot do so on the grounds that his small mishaps as a chat moderator (all the while learning, mind you) will in any way destroy his ability to become an administrator." He's still learning? If it's taken him this long to learn how to be a chat mod then I can assure you it will take a lot longer for him to learn how to be an admin. I don't want some guy who doesn't know anything about being an admin, yet will go around asking people for every situation - I want somebody that knows what he's doing.
 * "It is true that Redskin occasionally over-reacts at things and can sometimes create a bigger situation out of what might have been nothing." Oh yes. We'll just move past that because ALL the people make mistakes, right? No. These qualities are definitely not something I'd like to see (unless you want to talk about how he overreacts behind his back and then have it progress over time until nobody likes him). Just moving past his flaws and giving him more flags would do nothing beneficial for anybody.
 * "Redskin has undoubtedly contributed loads more than I could ever hope to the mainspace by way of page edits and photos. He has more than sufficiently contributed to the War Room and its discussions, and even helped sway the outcome of some of those. He is active in chat and most definitely shows a deep connection to the community." So he's a good user and chat mod. That doesn't excuse him from his mistakes and automatically make him the perfect choice for adminship. He needs to learn from them first before taking on even more responsibility.
 * "It's not against the law for a nominated user to not know some things about the wiki, as we are all here to learn." Then he should learn them first. There's absolutely nothing stopping him from learning when and how to handle certain situations. He can't be an admin and have to ask questions about everything.
 * "What defines the need for administrators is the inactivity of formerly-active administrators and the proven responsibility of the user who people think should become the next administrator." While those are the words of a sexy man, I could easily use that as my own reason. What inactivity is there now compared to activity? You want to have 8 active admins? Don't forget to add the crats - then you have 11-12. -- 21:02, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * tl;dr You had me change my vote. 12:03, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Something between weak support and normal support &mdash; Per Shottie.  12:03, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) He's a great guy and I see him doing a lot of work in multiple parts of the wiki. I'm definitely supporting this.  Eternal  Blaze  21:59, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral
Pending 16:30, March 4, 2012 (UTC) - I'm an idiot.

Pending 18:30, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Pending I need to think it over. 18:32, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Pending Same as Damac. 18:38, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) PotatOS Wanna Test?My Own Test Chambers 00:21, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, your reasoning is the previous RfA? Could you actually provide an actual reason as to why he shouldn't get the tools? Commander Shepard: "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!" 00:24, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * My reasoning in the previous RfA, yes. If you had checked it out before asking, I stated that I don't believe Redskin will fully be able to handle his tools. PotatOS Wanna Test?My Own Test Chambers 00:27, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read the previous RfA. I voted on it, in fact. But it's not relevant. Say here why he shouldn't be an admin, not there. Commander Shepard: "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!" 00:28, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * His reasoning is saying how most of the Opposes of RfA 1 were "Not Yet"s,and how there hasn't been a sufficient time or improvement between RfAs. 00:33, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I find the prospect of using reasoning in a past RfA almost laughable. You're implying Redskin hasn't improved at all or become more experienced, or the state of the wiki is the same as however many weeks ago Redskin's past RfA was. That is simply not the case. 02:32, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * The wiki has changed, I completely agree with that. While Redskin has continued being a superb editor, I still don't see much change from him in the past 5 weeks, thus my opinion is unchanged. PotatOS Wanna Test?My Own Test Chambers 03:06, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you feel it right to judge change on a time period Callofduty4, a valid point has been made. Five weeks in terms of a transformation of character is relatively small and it is unlikely that any great change has been made. This leads on to possible flaws in the accuracy and consistency in voting. The support for Redskin has risen dramatically which, providing no great change has been made (which it hasn't), makes you think maybe he should have been administrator five weeks ago? TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 16:24, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * We can take your argument and stretch it into such fallacies like "maybe he should have been administrator when he joined the wiki". That's obviously wrong. I'm totally inclined to say that not much has changed since Redskin joined the wiki except for an increase in his edit count. Which is again wrong. What is the point you are trying to make? 00:14, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what would the point in that be? Especially when that has nothing to do with my point. My point is that Redskin hasn't changed significantly in a month, however a large shift in how many users have now supported an RFA. So I guess really shortly what I'm saying is that PotatOS may have uncovered what is an inconsistency in voting. On top of that, it is not laughable to use previous RFA or other experiences in your vote. Experience is what develops opinion, as well as giving a good sense of perspective on situations. I am sorry that you did not understand my first point, hopefully this should make it clear. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 16:08, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  00:33, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Paragon's ban is what happens when you trust Google Translate (and yes I did jump to a conclusion on that occasion) 00:36, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I forget who, but on another occasion, you mistook someone saying something like a quote not directed at you as a personal insult and said something along the lines of "you have 2 seconds to explain why i shouldn't ban you ass right now" But, this was all out of memory, but it was along those lines. 00:41, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know what you where talking about, I then was just a bit overwhelmed and did not take care in my choice of words. 00:43, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * But if you can barely be trusted with smaller tools, how can you be trusted with larger ones? 00:47, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * While I see where you're coming from, "barely" is a bit of an overstatement. 00:50, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Philly, I believe that you are just focusing to hard on these small occasions, both of these occasions were sorted out correctly and where mere mishaps. Not to mention these occurred quite a long while ago. You can think of them what you like but that is my take on it, and it's not as if current administrators haven't had some mishaps, miscommunications or mistakes of there own, but of course the topic is not other administrators, and I do take full responsibility for those mistakes and have tried to better myself off of them. 00:52, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * He is fairly trusted with his tools and puts them to great use, but as the average human bieng we mess up so its fairly understandable to why Redskin reacted the way he did on the 2 chat events.00:55, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I feel that's Red banning me was my just desserts. What I said was offensive and broke UTP, and had he not banned me, I wouldn't have realised the error of my ways, and I'd probably have gotten a permaban from Chat by now. He has also warmed up to being a good friend and an even better contributor to this wiki. I hope my account clears everything up. 14:13, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * No user deserves adminship. That's not how it works. It is not a matter of deserving it - it is a matter of being trusted enough to be given tools. They don't go hand in hand. 02:34, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I believe there are other users that could use these tools better. 00:40, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but few are as consistently active as Redskin. 00:41, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Who are they? And how do they make Redskin any less of a candidate? If people don't want to nominate these users who could apparently use these tools "better", then that's their own problem. Not this RfAs, so do not give a baseless oppose vote here trying to solve the problem of the "better" candidates not being nominated. 02:34, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well then, besides me not seeing a need for a new admin, I understand various users believe that he improperly does his job, as well as sometimes not being level headed. I also understand that when he was given other powers, he was unable to use them properly and had made many mistakes. 01:09, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * "Various users believe that he improperly does his job" So you are basing you opinion of of what you have heard from other people? To me that only makes you look bad for not being able to generate your own opinion. Secondly if I was unable to use my current tools properly I would have lost them by now. So please would you kindly get some facts. 01:30, March 5, 2012 (UTC)~
 * Ohh sorry, I forgot others' opinions can reflect my own. Many apologies. Also, my opinion is that you would be an inefficient admin as you were ineffcient with your other powers. They were facts as I noted that several other users said the same thing. The fact that I don't want to say any name is my choice, as there needs to be no finger pointing. 01:55, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * First thing off, People make mistakes. You can't punish someone forever for that. I can see that he's grown from that, and tbh i don't think you should be relying on other people's opinions when it comes to an RfA. 02:15, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Conqueror of all Zombies 00:56, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Daniel Strike III   The think tank    01:01, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3)  01:09, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) While I know Redskin has the capacity to use these tools, I feel he needs a little more time, so he can smooth out any problems he has. The last time we gave a user adminship too early, he get desysopped within a few months because the community decided he was going mad with power. Redskin just needs some more time, that's all. 06:46, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I would go instantly mad with power? That sounds like a bit of an extreme scenario if you ask me. 15:43, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * What problems, may I ask? He's been on the wiki more than enough time, if you ask me. Commander Shepard: "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!" 21:06, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer your question Redskin, the last person we gave adminship to within 7 months of them joining the wiki was Sp3c. When he was granted admin, he was in about the same position you are in now. Good editor, never had any problems. A few months into his adminship however, he stopped editing on-wiki and mainly went to IRC, where reportedly he was always in a bad mood. He gave out ridiculously excessive punishments to users who had done very little wrong. His first Desysop forum resulted in people voting no, saying this should be a warning to him. However, the activities continued, to the point where he was desysopped two months later. I'm not saying that you could end up the same way, I am just being cautious about it. 21:50, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that just because the circumstances are the same as sp3cs, that he's going to get desysopped? i fail to see you're logic. Every single case is different, Nyx got sysopped in less then 7 months and he's not some overlord power crazed dictator. 02:15, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  08:10, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I fear Redskin will be unable to perform his job properly, and he needs more time to learn the rules fully. Per all. 10:51, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * But he's a chat moderator, so he knows the rules perfectly fine. 15:46, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Cod4, Redskin is one of the people on this wiki that know the rules almost perfectly. 15:56, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) per all  11:56, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)   14:23, March 4, 2012 (UTC)  Changing vote.  12:04, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe? 15:57, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * MLG means that at the present, Redskin does not fit a sysop description in his (MLG's) mind. MLG does however believe that in time it is a possibility that Redskin will fit his (MLG's) description.  -- 05:56, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant though. "Maybe" is not a clear cut reason. 14:07, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I took your one word question as a reasonable person would. I took your question as, "What do you mean by maybe?".  I then gave you a reasonable answer based on my experience with the English language to help you better understand what MLG meant.  Now, if you did not mean what I think you meant with your statement, (What do you mean by maybe?) I strongly advise you to elaborate more instead of using one word when asking questions.  Elaborating will effectively help avoid any further confusion people may have when trying to understand you.
 * Furthermore, seeing as how you knew the answer to your question all along, there was really no point in asking it. You simply should have made a declarative sentence rather than an interrogative sentence.  Just stating, "Maybe is not a clear cut reason," would have gotten the point across far more effectively (assuming that was your intention). -- 05:33, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Not yet Per all, maybe later.
 * Maybe? 15:57, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Reznov means that at the present, Redskin does not fit a sysop description in his (Reznov's) mind. Reznov does however believe that in time it is a possibility that Redskin will fit his (Reznov's) description.  -- 05:56, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant though. "Maybe" is not a clear cut reason. 14:07, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I took your one word question as a reasonable person would. I took your question as, "What do you mean by maybe?".  I then gave you a reasonable answer based on my experience with the English language to help you better understand what Reznov meant.  Now, if you did not mean what I think you meant with your statement, (What do you mean by maybe?) I strongly advise you to elaborate more instead of using one word when asking questions.  Elaborating will effectively help avoid any further confusion people may have when trying to understand you.
 * Furthermore, seeing as how you knew the answer to your question all along, there was really no point in asking it. You simply should have made a declarative sentence rather than an interrogative sentence.  Just stating, "Maybe is not a clear cut reason," would have gotten the point across far more effectively (assuming that was your intention). -- 05:33, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Comments/Questions
Shotrocket6 18:27, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Commander Shepard: "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!" 21:11, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

(If i offended anyone with the swearing, deal with it.) 06:26, March 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean with the chat users voting argument. There are quite a few users from chat who are voting oppose. It's not as bad as you're making it out to be.
 * However I thought about this yesterday when Drkdragonz66 and I were talking about it. It's commonplace for people who know the candidate well to disregard their bad points and instead focus mainly on their good points. It goes without saying that the guys from chat know Redskin well.
 * But that's not a bad thing. It's been happening forever. It happens on all wikis, and it happens in real life. This is not something that needs to be addressed. It's logical that if you use a chat (doesn't matter if it's the Chat or IRC, the same theory still applies), the more likely you are to get support votes from people in that chat, because they know you better. That isn't a bad thing, and it's definitely not a problem. Face this - it's simple psychology that the bad things stick out more than the good and can often seem much more prevalent than the good for this reason. Is this a reason to ignore bad things completely? Not at all. But it does beg the question if the oppose votes here are dwelling too much on the petty things Redskin has done wrong. Not to mention that a ton of the votes now are "per all". I think that it's becoming a buzzword in this specific RfA now. Do those people really agree with every single oppose vote, or do they just have nothing to say? 13:06, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason i wrote all is because of something that happened yesterday, I'm not going to name names or be specific, but it annoyed and pissed me off. I felt like i had to get it off my chest. Thanks for the reply also. 15:44, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Likely the latter. Shotrocket6 14:43, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of what happened yesterday. It should never have happened. 22:17, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot that I can't have my opinion about a candidate for adminship. If I believe he's not suitable, let it fucking be. It doesn't matter where he's from (IRC and Chat), that doesn't make a single fucking difference. In fact, I hope that you (us?) bringing this up doesn't escalate any further. So, no, I won't change my vote because someone is making false assumptions. I will firmly stay to my oppose vote, because it is my fucking opinion. PotatOS Wanna Test?My Own Test Chambers 22:28, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you and me already had a good talk in Walrus land i'm just going to put this here: -- 01:34, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * *standing ovation* 00:13, March 7, 2012 (UTC)