Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Callofduty4

Callofduty4 (5)
I, Cpl. Dunn, am nominating Callofduty4 for bureaucrat. He has been a great help to our wiki, and I feel our wiki would benefit from him having bureaucrat rights. He has uploaded good images, made lots of helpful edits to articles, and dealt with vandals exceptionally. He is an avid contributor in the War Room, and although one of his recent posts there is questionable, I have no doubt that if a bureaucrat he would behave with integrity and respect. Thank you, 17:25, August 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I gratefully accept this nomination. 17:29, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  17:25, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) -- 17:30, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) [[File:Macmillansig.jpg]] Pillsbury810  [[File:M40a3sig.jpg]] 17:33, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  Helljumper "Folks Need Heroes"
 * 5) Brothertim 17:41, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) per all Price25
 * 7) [[File:20755-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Happy-Boy-In-Uniform-Holding-A-Basketball-On-His-Hip.jpg|25px|link=Special:Contributions/Happy_Boy]] Happy Boy T  M   E 18:25, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  18:48, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  18:50, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  Dolten 1164610-433px usmc logo svg large.png  Let's Talk  21:19, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) 20PX_SIG.gif  Talk 21:26, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12)  Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 21:44, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 13)  Sactage   DILLAGAF?  Editcount  Contribs    Want a sig?  21:57, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 22:22, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Per all... Bravoalphasix.png 22:24, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) - Stbnewsig.jpg StB_Flag.jpg 00:13, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) -- 13:07, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) . 18:20, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) . 18:20, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  - Comment was added on 00:43, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Callofduty4 is one of the more active admins and has a knack for getting things done, often taking the expedient option rather than the lengthy bureaucratic one. However, there is an inconsistency in the way he approaches his duties. Most recently, as most of us are aware, Callofduty4 got himself into bit of hot water over a remark made in a War Room thread. This single comment, unfortunately, has shaken my confidence in Callofduty4's appropriateness as an admin, let alone as a potential bureaucrat. His follow-up comments in a related thread and his mannerism in a policy discussion can come across as brash and arrogant. I can't help but feel that Callofduty4 holds himself and his reputation above others and is reluctant to admit errors. At one point I may have supported his RfB, but when a legitimate concern is labelled as "unnecessary and plain annoying", I don't feel much has changed that would make Callofduty4 suitable as a bureaucrat. --Scottie theNerd 10:36, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Shotrocket6 16:57, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Lemon Tree Drop 17:43, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

 Happy Boy T M   E 19:12, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

22:39, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but so many people under Callofduty4 have gotten the b-crat flag. He is a heavily trusted user. Lemon Tree Drop 23:29, August 13, 2010 (UTC)




 * Your manner rubbed me the wrong way, giving me a hard time in assuming good faith. Instead of clearly stating your intention, you posted that you'll "think you'll delete" it, followed by a matter-of-fact statement, and you then restored the COD:AFP page with the comment that we "might as well" have a vote. The attitude I felt I was seeing was one of being fickle and inconvenienced. Your removal of your comment in the Random Ops. War Room thread was done because you wanted to "wipe their tears away". It took Bovell to opinionate that your comment was ""incredibly hostile and unnecessary" that you acknowledge the concern, and I personally felt your apology was rather insincere. At the end of the day, no one's going to give a "flying f---" about this; but while you seem content with labelling my concern as "unnecessary and annoying", your initial comment in that thread was just as "unnecessary and annoying". While 95% of work on the wiki is admirable, I did not admire the way you handled this little mishap, and given what the community expects from a bureaucrat, I do not feel confident in your capacity to mediate and arbitrate on issues such as these. I accept that I stand alone in my opinion and do not expect others to share the same sentiments, but I wish to state this opinion regardless. If it wasn't important enough for you to address in the War Room, then I leave it here for you in your RFA. --Scottie theNerd 15:16, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * One incident (especially one which is actually relatively small) should not overshadow the rest of what I've done. It seems to me that you expect me to write out an extremely sincere apology to the whole of the wiki for some reason. I think you've taken this incident and completely blown it out of proportion. No one mentioned it before you, I don't understand why you have to make such a great deal out of it.


 * Regarding the COD:AFP deletion, I did not mean to annoy you. Maybe that was also the case with you going on about that comment.  16:40, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's that big a deal either, but you keep on pointing at me. I'm the one who "blew it out of proportion". I'm the one making it "unnecessary and annoying". Given that you're the one at fault, you've been constantly dismissive about a small concern -- and that was what blew this out of proportion. In fact, I only briefly and impersonally referred to the comment as an example of AEAE and Neutrality, and you took it personally, and that was what kicked the whole thing off. I don't expect a sincere apology now, but I also don't expect you to dismiss it as something I exaggerated. This was your error, not mine.
 * But if you want to remove all the melodrama, the situation stands as this: you went a War Room thread that had a honest concern, and you posted "who gives a flying fuck", and someone actually did. What happened has happened, but this is a case of a user who cared and an admin who didn't. Another admin provided an opinion and other users used expressed some concern. My concern, whether or not you consider it "legitimate", has been vindicated. I therefore consider that I have done no wrong in raising this point. You have stated repeatedly that you do not understand why I have chosen to follow this course of action; and if you did not understand, you should not comment on it.
 * Other bureaucrats, from past experience, would have quickly identified the problem and, where applicable, their error and step in to intervene and prevent it from going out of hand. You, on the other hand, did not admit error until a bureaucrat provided an opinion. People do make mistakes, but I would appreciate more sincerety from an admin. I've come out of this minor problem rather sour because of the way you treated with me, and that has not given me the faith in you that would otherwise give a support vote. --Scottie theNerd 01:23, August 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I'm glad to see that you don't think it's a career-breaking deal, but from the way you scolded me it seemed to me that you thought it was. I did not state you did anything wrong, you are perfectly free to bring up this concern, though whether it is a legitimate concern or not is debatable. I did identify the problem, but I hesitated to admit I was wrong because I don't like doing that. It's human nature for someone to not like admitting they were wrong, and I know I need to curb that trait if I do become a bureaucrat, but whether that will be needed or not is left to be seen, because I don't plan on doing something wrong like that again.  01:40, August 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit concerned about what you might consider to be a "legitimate" concern. --Scottie theNerd 02:11, August 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose you can call that comment a legitimate concern (especially if it's coming from an administrator). What wasn't legitimate was when it started to be blown out of proportion.  02:18, August 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * But, given the previous scenario, the "legitimate" concern was brushed off and was raised again in more depth and "greater" concern. How is a concern any less legitimate if it escalates, regardless of cause? Does a concern become invalidated and illegitimate if a user goes on an angry tirade in the War Room? --Scottie theNerd 02:24, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Shotrocket6 16:45, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * By applaudible actions, I was referencing when he said that many users voted for you only because of your experience. And by inconsistancy, I meant the way you deal with problems. And the comment was essentially just to make sure you knew I wasn't biased. Shotrocket6 17:11, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * How do I deal with problems inconsistently?  17:24, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I know what you're talking about, and if I am correct, you're vote is personal and shouldn't be counted.  17:52, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * The inconsistancy comes from how, when say there's a vandal, sometimes you'll calmly point them in the right direction, and other times you'll curse them out. And as for your last comment; Wait, what? Shotrocket6 17:55, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * @Shotrocket6, Cod4 has his problems, (Like communicating) But I don't find what you just said right. ALN, For instance, Cursed out a Vandal, Why? The vandal did bad edits. And like Cod4 said, Your vote seems to be more personal, From the the flame war you had with TMOI. Bravoalphasix.png 18:00, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * BAS said it for me, because I didn't do anything to warn TMoI and whatnot. He's bound to listen to me more if I am a bureaucrat.  18:02, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I haven't cursed out a vandal in months. Show me somewhere where I have recently and then I'll understand what you mean.  18:04, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * If a detailed vote like Shotrocket6's is considered invalid because it's "personal" (which isn't against any rule), then positive votes that go along the lines of "He helped me a lot" should also be removed. --Scottie theNerd 01:23, August 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see why that shouldn't be the case.  01:40, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Scottie, Good point, but CoD4 was Flame wars/grudges/vandalism area. And I thought helping users is a good thing. Bravoalphasix.png 01:42, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what's wrong with a vote that relates a personal experience with the candidate? Just as a comment that the candidate being helpful demonstrates positive qualities, a negative vote relating a personal experience may also demonstrate other traits in the candidate. "Personal" voting is undefined and cannot be struck out on that basis. --Scottie theNerd 02:09, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Bravoalphasix.png 02:11, August 15, 2010 (UTC)