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.

DevilWarrior112 (3)
This is the third time and I hope "Third Time Lucky". It happened to Maj.Gage and I believe it will happen to me. I have been contribuating to Doc.Richtofen's Crimson Eagle story, reached 2,000 edits and been a lot more active with the community. Some experienced users already have told me that it will happen but not at the moment like Imrlybord 7, Callofduty4, Poketape and Chiafriend12. They're all administrators and have had all the comments about them. I think it is my time now to go for it again. I have also been on talk pages and have recently tricked out my home page. I have been more active in blogs and talking with users about stuff. I have the confidence to become an admin.

Neutral - Need more information on how you would be of help to the wiki as a sysop and why you should be made in. Being involved in blog posting and writing stories or roleplays is not an indication of suitability for adminship. --Scottie theNerd 12:45, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, you've been on the wiki longer than I have, so I wouldn't call myself an experienced editor. --Scottie theNerd 12:46, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said in your previous RfA, blog activity doesn't relate to being an admin. I'd like to hear about more specific things that you have done that indicate your suitability. --Scottie theNerd 12:53, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Scottie theNerd. Doc.  Richtofen  13:58, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Scottie, I would consider you a very knowledgeable and intelligent editor. Doc.  Richtofen  13:58, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards support - You're a good editor, but judging by the RFAs you don't know any of the wikians on this too well, sorry (For example, you said PGB would make a good admin with a bit of time, that clearly didn't happen). Also Scottie, you're probobly one of the smartest people on this, a very experianced editor indeed. Smuff 14:09, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - When I first ran for Admin, Bord told me that blog/forum edits dont count towards my RFA. Thats completly true, and that is what is happening here. Getting PGB to leave the Wiki will not make you a knight in shining armor. That is just rude and mean to force somebody off the internet. I will admit that you have been trying very hard, but I dont see anything THAT distinguished in your little paragraph.

Neutral I think you'd make a good admin, and all the recent activity has shown that, but I still think you need time. Poketape Talk 18:38, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - You constantly act like you have authority when you do not and the quality of your mainspace edits is only average. To be honest, I would not expect to see you become an admin anytime soon. But as always, I have to say that I am not trying to imply that it will never happen or anything like that. Hard work, patience, and a diminished sense of self-importance will get you there. Imrlybord7 18:47, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Not yet - Per all. -- EightOhEight  01:23, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards Oppose - While DevilWarrior112 does have an impressive amount of main space edits, it seems of late much of his contributions to the wiki come from blog posts. Community involvement is not the same thing as posting on a blog. A little more time I think is necessary before the user might be suitable for adminship. 20:05, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

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)

Moozipan Cheese
I nomiante Cheese for admin. He is a great user who is respected, mature and kind. His "100 Things We Hate About" series has amazed the wiki. He credited many users in his most recent animation. He connects great with the community and is a friendly user. I think he deserves to be an admin. 14:02, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As nomiantor. 14:02, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Not enough reason provided in nomination. Making an off-wiki satirical video and crediting contributors is not a sign that someone should become an admin. I would like more comprehensive information regarding the candidate, the nature of his contributions and evidence of positive working relationships with other users. --Scottie theNerd 13:27, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't take this personally, DevilWarrior, but we really should take nominations seriously. We can't just put up a random, friendly user and assume that we're all going to vote positive. I'd rather see the nomination include evidence of "connection" with the community and admin-appropriate qualities rather than having to sift through contribution histories just to figure out who he is. Many people might know Moozipan Cheese, but that's a name I haven't seen in wiki-related discussions. --Scottie theNerd 14:04, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - While Cheese is a nice guy, he hasn't really been seen contributing that much recently. That may be because of his animations, but that matters not. And while his videos credited the wiki and were made brilliantly and definately deserve recognition, it does not make him worthy of adminship. I never see much of the Cheese on this wiki nowadays. We're not even sure he wants them yet.

Oppose - Sorry, but as nice as this guy is, I have never seem this guy make a single edit. Also, although he is a lovely person, I'm not sure he is that active to begin with. Per Doc. Smuff 22:46, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Doc. You are a nice guy but I haven't seen you contribute in a while. Lt. Dunn (Talk) 22:49, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Pending Leaning Towards Oppose - He has about half the edits of most admins, barely more than myself. I've also never even heard of the guy, this meaning that he isn't very involved in the community. If there's a good enough of a reason he should be an admin I might change my vote, until then it's still pending.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 22:59, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I'm not even sure if Moozipan is interested in being an admin. There's little point in continuing the RfA if he doesn't accept the nomination. --Scottie theNerd 05:22, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * He hasn't accepted his nomination so I'm with Scottie. 10:33, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Smuff. Slowrider7 11:10, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - He is pretty much inactive on the wiki. Why would you even nominate him? Imrlybord7 18:07, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Peter Griffen Boy
I hereby nominate Peter Griffen Boy for the position of sysop. Although his behavioral record has been spotty at best, we have recently been communicating with each other quite a bit, and he really has turned over a new leaf. When using his alt account, Mad Miller, his mainspace contributions were of the utmost quality and his interactions with other users were conducted with the utmost respect and professionalism. I am totally confident that PGB will be able to keep up that kind of behavior if he has the incentives of both obtaining and maintaining a sysop position. Imrlybord7 18:19, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as nominator. Imrlybord7 18:19, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose DjuNgleB 18:24, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Despite the fact that this user has insulted me and others on countless occasions, claimed that he hated Canadians (and/or Australians, needs verification), has made two alternate accounts, has been banned three times, has terrible if not downright depressing grammar, respect for authority and people skills... he just might be the single greatest decision for adminship EVER. (If this isn't a joke, I might need to gouge my eyes out with a sharpened spork) Corporal Juan José Rodriguez  Reportin' for duty. 19:01, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Imrlybord7. (Can I have conformation you are actually being serious? Because it's the 1st of April and all.)  Doc.   Richtofen  19:03, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - One of the requirements is not to have been banned for two months. He fails this. This Rfa will not be passable until then. Doc.  Richtofen  19:03, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Wrong. PGB is such a good user that we can ignore that. He needs to be admin now! Darkman 4 19:23, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose- Per all of JJR's comments, He's made the wikia gone insane and even if he has been good lately, it's going to take a lot longer to gain my respect back for PGB. (Just Wondering, is this an April Fools Joke) E.TALE Barracks 19:37, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Dark, sit back down. I'm wondering the same thing E.TALE. Doc.  Richtofen  19:39, April 1, 2010 (UTC)