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)


 * As I apologized in the comments below, I am very sorry of my behavior in the COD:AR argument with Cod4. I realize what I did wrong, and promise to not do it again, period. If possible, avoid using it as a representation of my maturity level and/or how I deal with situations. Thank you. (If you want to read the whole argument, click here, everyone that wants to should know of it.) 21:00, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Per nominator. 18:59, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I think he knows what he's doing. Tr0529 I'm a nub 19:03, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  COD:AGF. . COD:AGF Has nothing to do with RfAs. Vote invalid.  Ireland_flag.gif  CoaZ Talk Ireland_flag.gif  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)
 * 1) 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 :)
 * Vote struck as User lacks fifty (50) mainspace edits or applicable experience on other wikis. 21:33, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how his edit count makes automaticly makes him edit worthy, and he can help out with MW3 with just the basic tools. Ireland_flag.gif  CoaZ Talk Ireland_flag.gif  21:31, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean admin worthy? -- 21:41, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean admin worthy? -- 21:41, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  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   Major_Rank_Marines.png  Reznov115 Talk Anim-tactical-nukeemblem.gif   19:33, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) 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)
 * And then you just got CoD4n'd.-02:05, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  Ireland_flag.gif  CoaZ Talk Ireland_flag.gif  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)
 * 1) --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)
 * 1) 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)
 * There is a massive difference between too many admins and too many new admins who are learning the ropes of their tools. 20:46, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  19:26, September 4, 2011 (UTC) Changing to Pictogram voting oppose.svg Vehement Oppose 23:32, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  1358  (Talk)  19:32, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * Not exactly. The more admins, the better, and even if there was 200 admins, one more wouldn't be bad. Just as long as admins are only made of trusted and good people. 20:43, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1)  21:07, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I work with images (a lot more recently) frequently, and I revert vandalism as soon as I see it. Remember that I live 10 hours ahead of you, which may affect on how often you see what I do. 21:19, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm looking and I still don't see much. Copyrighting =/= Marking images for deletion. Anyone can copyright, you don't need to be an admin to do that. 21:24, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, me not marking images for deletion isn't a good reason why I shouldn't be an admin as a single. 21:30, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd care to look at my other point that is not the only reason I opposed. 21:32, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, but it's the one you're mostly pointing on (also on IRC). 22:03, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really matter :P. 03:34, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I think there are really to many new admins learning the ropes as it is, adding one more would add to the confusion. And you really don't need admin tools as of now.  03:52, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) As I said on your last RfA, MLG, you are a fantastic editor. You have really proven yourself useful to the betterment of the wiki. However, I must agree with both Azuris and CoD4. Simply not yet. 04:55, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I simply do not see the need for an additional Sysop at the moment. Also, personally I don't care for the way the candidate must comment/question on each of the oppose votes the aren't "per so and so" as if to make the voter further explain himself. This in my opinion shows a lack of respect to the voters concerned. If this were my RfA id take the vote constructively and leave it at that. But thats just MY opinions. This is not to take away from what the user has done for the wiki so far and I do believe that he will indeed become an administrator in the future, just a.t.m. I don't see the need. 20PX_SIG.gif  Talk 05:45, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Per NCD, sorry bro.  13:48, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Per CallofDuty414:15, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Loldenied; the point stands.  20:53, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument is invalid, you supported Drk's, but opposed this one. Make up your mind. 03:45, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Because Drk's came on the back of another certain's someone's... *Drifts off* 20:43, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Pictogram voting oppose.svg No. - I'm going to make this super brief; I can't see why this guy needs the tools in any way, shape or form, and although I am going to sound like a dick here, I don't think I will for quite a while. 20:43, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Pictogram voting oppose.svg Vehement Oppose For a user to request Admin powers but not know the uses of rollback is incomprehensible for me. I don't see a need for him to have more powers if he does not understand how to use the ones he has properly. 23:32, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  --  ThunderGun.png  Guitar t-bone Talk! Waffe.png  12:39, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  --  ThunderGun.png  Guitar t-bone Talk! Waffe.png  12:39, September 7, 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)
 * CoaZ, you're doing nothing but feeding the situation. Any more arguing over this and I'll close this RfA and write a strongly-worded letter to all of you. --Azuris( talk ) 20:58, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * What's more, don't put the blame on me. If you can't figure out for yourself what the problem is, then don't bother trying to sort it out. Understood? 21:02, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? You just couldn't let it end? And I do know what happened. Hiptechboy was sarcastic and you said he doesn't show civility in his arguments. Ireland_flag.gif  CoaZ Talk Ireland_flag.gif  21:08, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Shut up. --Azuris( talk ) 21:11, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Shut up. --Azuris( talk ) 21:11, September 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Callofduty4. COD4 WASN'T being Uncivil, but it was Hiptechboy. If anybody wants to challenge this, you are welcome to do so. Also, It was Hiptechboy that said it first, tus he started it first. Logic people, Logic. You shouldn't have done it in the first place Hiuptechboy, RfA's are serious and not a place for sarcasm or fooling around. Major_Rank_Marines.png  Reznov115 Talk Anim-tactical-nukeemblem.gif  20:44, September 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Now wasn't that very rude? And what do you mean RfA's aren't a place for fooling around? Go check Drk's RfA, there's lots of fooling around going on there(Smuff/N7). 02:11, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Reznov, was there any need to bump this? 13:17, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Bump Bump :D
 * Reznov did you not JUST say that RfAs aren't for fooling around, yet you make a joke? Don't be a hypocrite. 23:35, September 6, 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)

 Talk 06:59, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * How does the nominee lack respect and professionalism (unless he participates to the joking and arguments)? 12:40, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * What I think he is saying is that it is a lack of respect for you. 17:05, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thats exactly what I was saying. Read it again. 20PX_SIG.gif  Talk 20:07, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad, misunderstood it. 20:39, September 6, 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)


 * He has a point though 23:36, September 6, 2011 (UTC)