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 few hundred 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.

Imrlybord7
I guess this has sort of maybe been a long time in the making, possibly. For anyone who doesn't know, I was the driving force behind getting the correct stats for the guns, perks, etc. of CoD4 and CoDWaW put onto the wiki. I have also contributed more to the Modern Warfare 2 page than anyone else, including much of the weapon list, perk list, attachment list, and equipment list. So if you agree that I would be a good addition to the admin team, gimme some support! If not, no hard feelings, just explain why you feel how you do. Thanks! Imrlybord7 21:03, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * To put it bluntly, I am the reason this wiki receives so much traffic. People come here for MW2. Imrlybord7 16:43, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - No offense but you hardly participate in community discussions and there is no anti vandal work on your part. I think rollback should be given and you should focus on vandalism some more first-- 21:10, October 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Changing to extreme oppose per this-- 21:21, October 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * If someone continually makes an incorrect edit despite the complaints of other users, I'm not going to be nice to them. Imrlybord7 21:27, October 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * COD:AGF-- 21:32, October 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Just in case anyone is curious about how that ended... http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Patrickd13 Imrlybord7 16:49, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Support - He was instrumental in making the CoD: MW2 page what it is now. Plus I told him I would support him and I'm not one to go back on my word. But Bigm's right, Imrlybord. You're going to need to tone it down a bit with the way you talk to users, even if they're being complete idiots. I understand how you feel, there are times when I just want to unleash a storm of names and swears, but I always keep a halfway pleasant attitude, at least in what I'm typing. If you do continue with your current attitude towards idiots you'll find yourself in a situation just like Bigm was, and nobody wants another one of those. But anyway, as long as you control yourself I think you'd make a great addition to the admins. 02:18, October 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, to tell you the truth I've been thinking the same thing. Thanks for the support and the honesty. Imrlybord7 02:41, October 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, anytime. 02:46, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Extreme Oppose - You have had several minor pa's on the MW2 talk article. Although not that serious, it doesnt give a good impression of you. Not to be a dick (although I know I am going to sound like one) but I have double the editcount you have, and therefore more experienced. (this is an assumption - I might not be correct). I think you deserve rollback. You have been the greatest help with MW2 by a long way.08:37, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Comment One of the more serious ones was directed at me. From MW2 talk Archive 1

"This might be a bit out of line, but I just have to respond to whoever wrote the above paragraph. You are an idiot. An absolute idiot. Portal? And FYI all bullets move at an infinite velocity in Call of Duty (because there aren't any bullets, just numbers being instantly projected from the gun onto wherever the shooter is aiming), so there would never be a perk for "faster bullets." Your ideas are incredibly stupid and I hope you never edit here again. Imrlybord7 07:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)"

Tbh I wasn't very happy about that, and that has scarred your reputation (from my viewpoint at least). 08:42, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Comment directed towards SaintoflosangelesXD(m)

Bigm didn't deserve the situation we forced him into. 08:44, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

You seriously suggested that a portal gun or the ability to fly would be perks in MW2. And Bigm has done far more to you than I have, but for some reason you worship the guy. Imrlybord7 16:36, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is there any way we can actually get this some publicity? Only 3 people have voted. Imrlybord7 16:53, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't worship Rs4ife. don't be stupid. 17:14, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose He seems like a good user, who contributes greatly to this community. I just do not think that with becoming unecessarily angry at other users is really good admin material. I fully support him having roll-back though. It would be greatly useful. Attack Rhino 06:54, October 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed to Neutral leaning towards oppose - I only say the oppose part, as I am sure you would be a great admin around here, except for the fact that you can become angry towards other users, and especially when the circumstance does not really warrant that amount of anger. Hopefully this will soon change, otherwise I cannot feel that I can support an admin who does not mean to become angry, and then in the heat of the moment abuses the admin powers. I think an admin who cannot keep their cool should not be given the responsibilities, as the saying goes "With great power, comes great responsibility." I for one do not completely trust myself to being an admin sometimes, as I know I flare up when provoked or when someone does something really stupid or annoying. Attack Rhino 06:14, October 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I just chastise harshly, I don't see myself swinging the banhammer (unless vandals fall into its shadow). Imrlybord7 12:54, October 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed to neutral It seems I do not know the circumstances well enough, your past record, and generally how you are. I absolutely think you except for the one (maybe few) time(s) where I think it might not have been warranted or needed. I guess the only real problem was with the Patrick guy and then argument about Tactical Insertion. Attack Rhino 21:34, October 15, 2009 (UTC) P.S. I did not strikethrough my above argument, as i think some of it is still (at least somewhat) relevant.

Oppose He is an excellent contributor especially on the Modern Warfare 2 page, however, he has a very quick temper and tends to lash out at others(both to those who deserve it and to those who make small mistakes). Both edits and attitude count in my opinion. --Cpt Jack House 16:19, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Changed to Neutral - He has great editing skills, but needs to work on his people skills. Time will tell. 20:21, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Not to get sentimental, but that really means a lot. Thank you. Imrlybord7 02:00, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Hi im XxAshuraxX, im new to this kind of thing, and i just wanna say that, after seeing what happened during this troubling time, i think that maybe Imrlybrd may be the admin that this wiki needs. My only criticism would have to be to tone down your anger. we all make mistakes, even repeated ones. Just take it easy and everything will be fine. P.S. after going through the archives of the talk pages, this wiki is turning into a democracy. that's really important in the development of this place.XxAshuraxX 03:19, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks. I do things to make the wiki the best source for CoD info it can be, not to appease other users. Although I do agree that I need to get a little better about keeping my cool. Sucks for me that you are too new to vote. Imrlybord7 03:55, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm sorry Imrlybord7, but although your edits are usually outstanding, your people skills and ability to be democratic need a lot of work. Remember - the privelage of administrator is not a reward or something that can be "earned" by hard work per se. Those who should recieve sysop are usually those who have a good track record, are good at handling/diffusing situations, participate in most if not all community discussions, and have a good solid idea of how a wiki works. Although a few on that list describe you, I believe that you are not "admin stuff". However, you could be. 01:00, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Creepydude, I agree with your post, and honestly, the fact that people appreciate the quality of my edits means more to me than whether or not they think I am admin material. So thank you. Imrlybord7 03:46, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - The simple fact that your reply was respectful and even (whoa) thankful is, I think, a statement in itself to the fact that you are improving on your people skills.  Always remember a good user does not mean being an admin, and by you accepting that with good will, you are probably a lot more mature than I was when I ran for admin.  Keep up the good work!   04:01, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose You are without a doubt our MW2 expert, but I don't think your attitude is admin-material yet. Keep improving it, and I think you'll be an admin in no time. Darkman 4 05:33, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Creepydude (2)
To be quick, I'm currently the only bureaucrat. Usually, there should be at least two active bureaucrats so that in the event that one goes inactive, we wouldn't be screwed over. So, yeah. Creepy's already an administrator, I find that he's very trustworthy and that he would make a splendid bureaucrat. 06:12, October 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thanks a lot chia. Well yes I have been inactive.  What can I say?  However, I do pop on and edit in phases.  Also, if ever I am needed, I can show up.  My schedule has been crazy as of late, but I'm starting to get it all together.  Cheers people!   14:50, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Fully support He seems like a good guy. From what I have seen, he has acted like a proper admin should. Attack Rhino 07:00, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - he has been inactive for the last 6 months. If anyone I think Dark should be a crat-- 11:35, October 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Question Why not both? Attack Rhino 15:59, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

reply and voting neutral - Attack rhino, we only need 2 crats. I vote neutral because creepy has been inactive but he has recently come back. He's a fine editor, but at the same time, so is Darkman.... 16:58, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Darkman might be more deserving of crat status, but Creepydude is the one running and he is definitely worthy for reasons that I think everyone knows. Imrlybord7 21:48, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support Just because he recently came back from a period of inactivity does not make him any less deserving of crat status. As someone who was on the forefront of the last last few weeks' events (which I won't go into here) he remained cool, calm, and most of all, fair in a situation that would have stressed anybody out. WouldYouKindly 22:09, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support Creppy is a very good guy, and is good at being neutral in tense situations. he's got my vote. Darkman 4 05:33, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

SaintofLosAngelesXD(m)
Because I'm somewhat ill currently and I'd probably suck at trying to write any sort of speech, I'll just say the gist of it: Saint is a good user, is mature, has nearly a thousand edits, and so on. I really think his presence as an administrator would be quite beneficial to the Wiki. 06:12, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support Nominated him for UoTM, why not admin?   Maj.Gage   Talk . 10:32, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support-- 13:59, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Highly recommended user by me. I see great potential here. 14:55, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Not yet. I believe more experienced is required, as with Imrlybord7, WYK and Critchell. However, as with all those users, you are extremely thorough in your work and a great help to the wiki.16:58, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - So I don't have to go around to everybody's talk page, thanks to everyone for voting, whether or not they support me. I appreciate the input. 20:33, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support - He's a great user. Also, Cod4, anyone with around 1000 edits has plenty of experience, and not that I think you're likely to change your mind about me due to my prior treatment of you, I just wanted to let you know that I had hundreds of edits before I made an account, so my real edit count is probably around 1400 or 1500. Imrlybord7 21:48, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support He's an excellent contributor, has done some excellent anti-vandal work, and always has intelligent insights when participating in discussions. He'd make a great admin. WouldYouKindly 22:00, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Not yet. I believe more experienced is required, as with Imrlybord7, WYK Critchell, and callofduty 4. However I think your doing a great job, keep this up and you'll get adminship soon. 20:39, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose User has made some good edits, but I think there are more users that would be better with admin. Darkman 4 05:33, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

WouldYouKindly
Because I'm feeling too lazy to surgarcoat it, WYK's a good, mature and trustworthy user. He'd make a good admin. 06:12, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Can't say no. From everything he has done on the wiki, WYK is extremely qualified for an upgrade in user powers. 11:05, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support -- 13:59, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Not yet. Although a great editor, I believe some more experience is required. 16:58, October 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Not sure how much of a moot point this is, but you only have 178 more mainspace edits than he does. Not that much of a difference in experience I think. Attack Rhino 21:08, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Comment- To take a cue from Saint, Thanks to everyone who comments here. I appreciate your input whether you support me or not and promise to do everything in my power to keep this wiki vandal-free and a great place for all things Call of Duty should the community find me a good choice for an admin. WouldYouKindly 21:55, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support - You deserve it, but with the competition going on I was very close to opposing. Imrlybord7 22:01, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral, Leaning towards support - WYK, I know what kind of person you are, and you're a great contributor. You have a small mainspace edit count, but I know what help you've been to the wiki in that number, so that's an exception. I'm sure you're experienced enough for the job, and you are my friend, but I juuust barely think Callofduty4 should be the replacement, by only a fraction, at least. If things don't look so good for him near the end...again...I'll be willing to vouch for you. I'm sure you understand. 20:23, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Support - WYK is probably one of our best users. He has a lot of good edits and has caused no problems. He has my full support. Darkman 4 05:33, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Critchell
There seems to be alot of requests so i thought if i get denied adminship now it won't be such a defeat since there's most likely others who'll get rejected. Unless of course everyone else gets adminship and i fail. Please Don't.   Critchell   Sniper  09:39, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - no anti vandal work and hardly participates in discussions-- 13:59, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

comment - there is no way to anti-vandal other than protect pages, so i assume that you mean i never get rid of any vandalism, which is because it's actually not that common and when it happens one of the current admins has already deleted it and warned the vandal. Also, you forgot to up the tally.   Critchell   Sniper  14:23, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

oppose- Not yet, a lot more experience is needed. 17:00, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose - He doesn't even come close to stacking up to the competition. Imrlybord7 21:51, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Not yet Sorry Critchell. You're a great contributor and a great guy all around, but I really don't think you have enough experience in anti-vandal work. I'd work on your edit count and participate more in discussions. Do these things and then you'll definitely be admin material WouldYouKindly 22:06, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Comment Sign your posts. /facepalm Imrlybord7 21:59, October 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment- Oops, my bad. Was trying to vote on a whole bunch at once so I guess it just slipped my mind >.> WouldYouKindly 22:06, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Here, I'll just say one thing - your edit count is waaay too small for this position. 20:06, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Good user with good edits, just simply not enough time here. Needs more time to show the wiki who he is by participating largely in discussions, getting to know the other users, and doing some simple anti-vandalism. 06:27, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - User has made good edits, but he hasn't done a lot of ani-vandal work and doesn't have any outstanding contributions.

Callofduty4 (5)
Hi there everybody. Well it's me again. I believe it is the right time to try again. With BigM not an admin anymore, it is time for a new one. If I become an admin, I promise to work with everybody. I promise to use my tools to good measure, and with great professionalism. I know I am not the most liked user on the wiki, but I strive to become one of the Community's best known figures, and with the coming release of MW2, we definitely need a new admin.

I have the determination to make this wiki an even better place for CoD info. I promise to be professional with my tools, and act like any other user. I know being an administrator does not make you any more important than anyone else. I feel I am pretty well known on this wiki, I have a pretty mixed reputation, and over 2200 edits.

So please have your say. Thanks a lot, 16:58, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sure he's made some mistakes in the past, but he has more than made up for them. He's got a huge edit count, too, and does good anti-vandal work. 20:39, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - There are more deserving users. If it wasn't for all of the competition, I would support you. I know you might think I dislike you, but that's not the case. I was just angry one time. And by the way, I don't think I'm more deserving of adminship than you anymore. I think I am a more valuable editor, but in terms of keeping calm and anti-vandal work, you take the cake. Imrlybord7 21:55, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Keeping calm and anti vandal work are the primary jobs of admins. Come one now.
 * Comment - Sign your posts. And in defense of my position, I feel that being a good editor is important too. Imrlybord7 12:57, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I don't think I really need to go through great lengths to explain myself. I still stand by my supports and comments from your previous RfA, and by now I shouldn't be the only one who sees that you need to take BigM's place. Oh, and your position in relation to vandals and their work is astounding, to say the least. 20:12, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I think the whole controversy with you and Bigm last month is still reminiscent in people's minds. I won't go into details, but some people could take your actions there the wrong way. Also, if I recall correctly, you had a temporary block back in July due to a personal attack. Not to say that you haven't learned your lesson since then, but it is something to consider when giving an upgrade in user powers. You have many wonderful traits Callofduty4, I just think that you still need a little more time to prove to the community that they outweigh some of the alleged bad ones. 22:03, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think that, at least in terms of Callofduty4, everyone should just ignore any of his bad behavior. It's a rarity, and he is usually VERY well mannered. I oppose his adminship because I feel that the other people running are better editors, but if you feel he is a good enough editor but are wary of his past behavior, I say throw the inhibitions out the window and support him. Imrlybord7 02:02, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comment that fiasco is over. I didn't actually do anything wrong, we just had a bit of stupidity from Bigm that I have forgiven. 19:36, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Bovell, I would just like to confirm that the past "BigM issue" was mostly BigM not Callofduty4. There was a small problem with CoD4, but it was treated injustly and incorrectly by BigM and Darkman 4. Although your vote stands however you want it, it bears pointing out this simple fact. 06:21, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Changing to Support - What the hell. He'd be a good admin, so it doesn't matter if we have a bunch. If it causes issues, they won't be coming from him. Imrlybord7 03:53, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Support - User has matured a significant amount since the last infraction. I highly reccommend Callofduty4 and hope that he will keep to his word and be a solid admin if his RFA is successful. There's not a whole lot to say, but I believe this user shows the most potential in being a well-mannered and political admin. If anything, his apologies for past issues prove that he has the humility to be a good admin. If there's anything we don't want it's a stuck-up admin. 06:15, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I'm wary of divulging too deep into the topic revolving around why I voted oppose, so I hereby make my vote void. Good luck Callofduty4! 11:00, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

MEGA COMMENT Uhh, guys, thanks you very much for your votes. However, I will be leaving to go to India on Sunday for 10 days, so I highly doubt I will be around for at least the first 7 days (the last 3 I will be in a hotel, which will probably have internet). However, I doubt this will be a problem so there is no need to stop voting. Yeah, so if I do (raising my hopes high there) become an admin, please don't be upset that I won't be around for a few days. 16:51, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Support - why not-- 18:42, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Extreme oppose - Call of duty 4 is a great user, but I don't want an admin that yells in all caps, and bolded fonts 21:45, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - This is your fifth RfA in four months. That's quite a lot. 05:12, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Support I've been wrong about CoD4 in the past. I think he's a great and dedicated user that's made a lot of contributions. he seems to be controlling his temper better as well. I think he could be a great admin if he keeps his cool, which I think he can do now.

Maj.Gage
Sure, I guess I'll give it a whirl. I joined the wiki in June and have close to 1000 edits. I contribute a lot to the Call of Duty Wiki each day and night and it would be nice to be an admin. I guess I am well known around the wiki. I have never been banned and doubt I will be (arragoncy alert). I promise to do the best I will be if I am selected to be an adminastrator.   Maj.Gage   Talk . 20:00, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Not yet I think more experience is required. However, you are a great help to the wiki. 20:14, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Insert the usual compliments here. Imrlybord7 21:57, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm with CoD4. 20:17, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Not yet - I just think the amount of RFAs going around is incredible, and so I'm gonna have to make some decisions here on which ones I think have the most potential. Maj.Gage is a great contributer and possibly admin stuff, but maybe hold of for a little while. Don't give up on this though man. 05:00, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose User need to get a little bit more experience to become an admin. I think he has potential, though. 05:33, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Cod1 (2)
Hi I would like to try again. I think I would make a great admin, I work hard day and night to make this wiki one of the best, and I'm always polite to fellow wiki users, admins, I.P.'s and staff members. I will try my best to keep vandals out, and keep this wiki running smoothly. I've been a member of this wiki since January, 31st, 2009 and have an edit count of 1,408 and counting. So please vote me for adminship.

Neutral - I almost feel like I shouldn't even bother voting if I'm neutral, but I just wanted to say that I really don't feel like I know you at all. Maybe that's because all I do is hang around the MW2 pages. Imrlybord7 21:58, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - For now, I'll just say that based on edit count alone, you're not experienced enough. Sure, you have about 1.5k, but they're spread out over all the other categories, not just mainspace. I think you need to get that number up alone if you want statistics to back you on how experienced you are for the job. And I don't really seem to recall much anti-vandal work or major clean up on your part, but of course I could be wrong. 20:16, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Don't get me wrong, your a good user as far as editing and welcoming goes, but there have been some fights in regards to past RFAs and TBH I really can't say that much for your maturity. You need to give it some time. 05:02, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - User has had a minor problem with changing votes in the past. However, he has made many good edits and has helped clean up your CoD portable game coverage. He's got potential, but I think there are some better admin choices right now. Darkman 4 05:17, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Akyoyo
Given the current confusion, I don't think asking to be a Sys-Op would be a good idea. But, I do want to compete with Creepydude for the title of the second bureaucrat. I'll skip the whole song and dance and just get with the credentials: I'm a notable user, many of you know me and what kind of guy I am, I was user of the month, that should show something, I do have a large edit count (relatively), granted not all of it is in mainspace, but I actually have some experience with bureaucrat tools on another wiki. Plus, even though I don't constantly change the wiki everyday because I have to go to school, I promise you that I definitely won't take some sort of sabbatical from you guys for months on end. Thoughts? 21:11, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Not yet - You havn't been here long enougth. 23:38, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's another thing I left out. I really take the time to make sure what I'm typing includes proper punctuation, spelling, grammar, capitalization, and real words. 04:49, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Bear in mind this has nothing to do with me running for bureaucrat. First, and most importantly, you always seem to come across as a snarky user. Maybe it is just me, but I don't think so. Second, it is usually customary to run for sysop first, then bureaucrat later. It just seems that you are jumping the gun a lot here, especially with all the candidates here already. 05:22, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Great user with a good edit count. He improved so many articles he at least desevres admin. Supported.   Maj.Gage   Talk . 09:41, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I don't know, I think it might just be you, Creepy. But I really want to reinforce the fact that I actually have had a bureaucrat's powers before. That seems like something important to focus on. 17:18, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Per Creepy-- 17:39, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - User doesn't have the best attitude. I wouldn't feel comfortable with him being an admin. Darkman 4 05:33, October 17, 2009 (UTC)