Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship/MLGisNot4Me (2)

Hi. I think it's time for me to stand up and nominate myself to be an administrator. By now, I'm just about to hit 4,000 edits, and have been active for 6 months. While only nearly 2 months have passed from my previous nomination, in the gap I have been very active for almost every day, in all areas of the wiki, including community discussions (such as RfA, AfD, UotM and FA), War Room and mainspace. In the latter, I have also reverted vandalism (also warned and reported them) and undone bad edits.

To mention, I have a friendly and mature attitude, have a good knowledge of policies (you don't have to mention my little misunderstanding on COD:NOT for a little time) and do my best to make this wiki a better place.

Though El(to)mo and Carb recently got sysop flags, and Drk is likely to become one too next week's Monday, I'd like to remind that there is not a limit to admins (active or not), so please do not use it as an opposing argument.

Also, as MW3 is just around the corner, definitely more people will come here and more active admins will come in handy.

I don't consider adminship being an ultimate goal or a position of higher rank of some sort, but to be given tools to help the wiki significantly more.

Thank you for your time. 18:57, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support
Per nominator. 18:59, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

I think he knows what he's doing. Tr0529 I'm a nub 19:03, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

COD:AGF. . COD:AGF Has nothing to do with RfAs. Vote invalid. CoaZ Talk   19:42, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * What? I could use that to make every single user an admin. COD:AGF doesn't differentiate MLGisnot4Me from any other candidate, which is the whole point of a request for adminship. 19:40, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

MLG is a very good editor, usually first to revert vandalism, spot bad edits, etc. I think making him an admin would do us all good :)

Neutral
While I think he would benefit greatly with admin tools, I don't think he is quite ready for them yet. And there will be plenty of admins available to keep order on the MW3 pages- And other users for that matter. Also judging by your argument with Callofduty4 over COD:AR played a major factor on voting on your RfA. Then again, we should Assume Good faith in editors... it is actually hard to know what to do.... Switching to    Reznov115 Talk    19:33, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose
I do not see a need to give MLG administrative tools, nor have I been totally convinced that he is the right person for them at this time. 19:00, September 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Care to explain? 19:03, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to not question my reasoning and instead take what I say as a simple vote? I'm not convinced he is the right person at this time. That does not need to be explained further. 19:41, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

CoaZ Talk  19:07, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * That is, like MLG said, not an argument, as there is no limit to the amount of admins. 19:37, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * One of his points was that with the release of MW3 coming up, we need another admin. I was just saying that we don't need another admin just because of a game that going to be released. Ireland_flag.gif  CoaZ Talk Ireland_flag.gif   19:48, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say we need another admin then, but it'll be a good thing to have more. 19:51, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is, a new game coming is hardly a reason to make someone an admin. I wasn't an admin at the time of BO's release, but I did help out a lot with keeping the pages maintained. Ireland_flag.gif  CoaZ Talk Ireland_flag.gif   19:58, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't intended to be a reason why I should be an admin. Still, it's good plus and it's not a bad thing to side-mention. 20:02, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

--Azuris( talk ) 19:07, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I do agree that I was starting to get a little overhyped, but I was still trying to only convince Cod4 that he was too stubborn about it (including trying to keep it as the topic and admitting he was annoying and stubborn). Also, I still kept myself cool so I wouldn't raeg. 19:18, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Telling him "you're too fucking stubborn" isn't exactly keeping your cool in a situation like that. And in an argument like that one, telling someone that they're annoying and stubborn isn't the best way to get them to support whatever your idea is - there is always a more friendly way to handle arguments. --Azuris( talk ) 19:22, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Telling him wasn't the first thing I did. I tried to make him stop the argument and that stuff, but apparently "Stop" means "Challenge accepted". 19:34, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

19:16, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Per all, too many new admins, as far as I'm concerned. You're a good editor though, I'll give you that :) 19:21, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I reminded, there's not a limit to admins. 19:22, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * There's never too many admins. 19:26, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * What he's saying is that there is too many users getting used to admin tools at the same time. A couple of opposes on my RfA were based off of the same idea. Ireland_flag.gif  CoaZ Talk Ireland_flag.gif   19:38, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Respect to CoaZ. I'd give you the YellowRiolu award if I had a template for it 20:08, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

19:26, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

1358 (Talk)  19:32, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

If I wanted a new admin, It'd be you. But we are fine with the admins we have now. But when we do need more admins, you'd get my strong support.Phillycj 19:39, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, there's not a limit to admins. 19:42, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a limit, but a desired amount. Phillycj 20:36, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

I feel at this moment in time MLG can sometimes fail to deal with tough situations that administrators deal with, thus making him the wrong to have when settling an argument, which admins are sometimes set out to deal with. -- 19:58, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I don't now quite remember one, can you give me an example where I couldn't deal with a tough situation? Thanks. 20:06, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * The case referenced to in the above posts. -- 20:09, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say, other than the COD:AR fight. 20:14, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Comments/Questions
Can't you all just assume good faith? He's a good editor and could benefit greatly from these "powers". And stop with the "Per x", come up with your own reason of why he should shouldn't be an admin. 19:24, September 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with "Per x", if you agree with someone's opinion its a much better way then just repeating what they say. And adminship isn't really the type of thing where assuming good faith is key. The main point of an RfA is to judge someone from past behavior/contributions if they are capable of handling the responsibility of being an administrator effectively. --Azuris( talk ) 19:32, September 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * We assume good faith in terms of edits, not power. "Per X" is a valid reason as it can be used to show that someone else shares you ideas, further backing them up. I could RfA right now and it would fail even though I came in good faith. 19:29, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * If we can't do per x, neither can you. 19:31, September 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, i'll do Per Y, is that better? And at Azuris and TWC, fine, I end my argument. 19:35, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * No. 19:41, September 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * If you do not show civility in your arguments, I will not hesitate to void every single one of them. This is the first and only warning you will receive. Don't game the system, and don't be a dick. 19:48, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you talking to me? What did I do? I'm very offended by your statement. 19:50, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't flatter yourself. Of course I was talking to you. 19:55, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I call BS!! How in the world was I gaming the system or being a dick? I don't even understand how I was "showing no civility". Also, you were being a dick in your previous statement(no offense). Hiptechboy 19:59, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * "I call BS!!" "Ok i'll do Per Y" are major signs of incivility, the latter of which is blatant sarcasm, and completely unnecessary. You have been warned to stop, so do so. I will not warn you again and instead I will consider a block. 20:02, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't at all trying to be rude, I was just playing around, what is wrong with that? Bohater, couldn't you tell i was just joking? Assume Good Faith, remember?(to clarify again, I am not trying to be uncivilized or whatever.) Hiptechboy 20:07, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * How about both of you STFU? CoD4 over reacted to a joke by Hiptechboy who didn't make it clear that it was a joke. Ireland_flag.gif  CoaZ Talk Ireland_flag.gif  20:09, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether or not you were trying to be rude or incivil or stupid or whatever the hell you want to call it. You were and you will be punished/warned as such. --Callofduty4 20:14, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * CoD4, Hiptechboy didn't say anything uncivil. After reading the coversation, it appears that you started it. Ireland_flag.gif  CoaZ Talk Ireland_flag.gif   20:30, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * CoD4, Hiptechboy didn't say anything uncivil. After reading the coversation, it appears that you started it. Ireland_flag.gif  CoaZ Talk Ireland_flag.gif   20:30, September 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * If we were to assume good faith for making people admin, you could as well sysop any new user, as they did nothing wrong, so assuming good faith would make them the best candidates ever. 19:52, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr.Hip ever heard of COD:DGTS? 20:12, September 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes Mr.Bo, I actually just read it right now, thank you very much.Hiptechboy 20:16, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Per CoaZ, shut up (in a nice way). You're both starting to heat up apparently, and before any consequences, I recommend both of you end it here. Thank you. 20:18, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * You made my name sound like Bo hater D: 20:19, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

19:38, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned with that as it wasn't representative of your behaviour as a whole. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that getting over-irritated was a one-off and forget about it. 19:51, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

If we don't need anymore admins, then why don't you guys go to Drk's RfA and withdraw your Behemoth supports? Hmm? Drk has been a little immature too, but some of you guys still him. 19:46, September 4, 2011 (UTC) Never Mind it. Hiptechboy 19:53, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * The RfAs are no place to compare 2 users. You do not have the right to call out people's supports on another user's RfA and attempt to use them to garner support on this. Doing so is very dishonourable behaviour. 19:51, September 4, 2011 (UTC)