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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 1) I believe there
 * 2) 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)