Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Sactage (3)

I, WHISKEY35 do here-by nominate Sactage for the position of Bureaucrat. This user has been a constant fixture on this wiki since I began. He has also been very active in all areas of the wiki. He has shown me to be a loyal and dedicated member of this community and has helped countless users in need of his expertise from basic editing to .js composing. This user can also be found on our IRC channel all the time, so he is always available for help if needed. He is constantly doing what Admins do best, keeping the wiki in running order and in top shape. I do believe that he would do well to have the additional B'crat tools entrusted to him. My opinion is that his time has come and I believe that he's ready for it. I also know that he would never abuse these tools in any way, shape, or form. This user is constantly involved in the War Room discussions by helping to create Wiki policy, patrolling blogs and New Changes and reverting edits where needed. (Something all of us should be doing). Sactage is always willing to lend a helping hand where needed, I believe this user would make a perfect addition to the B'crat team. I do not see this user as becoming inactive anytime in the near future and will be sticking around for a long time to come to further benefit the wiki. I ask that you consider this RfB and I thank you for your time. I hope that you will support Sactage in this RfB.  Talk 04:36, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I gratefully accept WHISKEY's nomination. 11:33, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) 20PX_SIG.gif  Talk  04:36, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Carbonite 0 04:42, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 06:21, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  Shotrocket6 (T/C/E) 06:27, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)   RC  ™   06:29, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  18:45, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Very weak support — Sucktage has a clear head, good user all-round. --  22:07, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Very weak support — Sucktage has a clear head, good user all-round. --  22:07, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  I don't really know whether it is really necessary for us to give another user bureaucrat tools at this time.  12:08, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Neutral, leaning towards weak support — Per Callofduty4, but i feel Sactage has done a lot here, and the nomination shows he has, so I will remain neutral. --  12:12, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) While Sactage has done a lot for the Wiki Per COD4, we don't really need another 'crat at the minute.
 * 4) Per cod4, we don't really have a shortage of active crats at the moment.  13:01, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree with cod4 -- 13:10, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6)  You are fine with the tools you have right now, you don't really need the ability to assign rights, with 3-4 active b'crats now.  14:24, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  22:14, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Shotrocket6 (T/C/E) 22:16, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  22:15, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  22:15, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Comments/Discussion
Shotrocket6 (T/C/E) 21:59, August 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Not the point. But why make him a crat when it's not needed? Bureaucrat is a very high position to be in and there's no need to give it out if there's well, no need. 22:00, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * You might have misunderstood me. What could be a downside to having an extra 'crat? Shotrocket6 (T/C/E) 22:01, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have a bunch of active 'crats at the moment, we don't really need another one. He's doing fine with the admin tools, doesn't need the ability to assign user rights. 22:03, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not the point. But why make him a crat when it's not needed? Bureaucrat is a very high position to be in and there's no need to give it out if there's well, no need. 22:03, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the both of you. However, I am asking for the reasoning behind your reasoning. You can't say "it's not necessary" without providing some form of why. Shotrocket6 (T/C/E) 22:07, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

It's the most senior position one can obtain on the wiki. It is not given out unless there is an explicit need to. There is not an explicit need at the moment. 22:11, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that you have clarified, I will accept this and change my vote. It might be a good idea in the future to include specific reasoning, such as "It is not given out unless there is an explicit need to." Shotrocket6 (T/C/E) 22:15, August 2, 2011 (UTC)