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.

Poketape (2)
I feel that now is the time to try again. I want to become an admin so I'll be able to fight against vandals. I see vandalism all the time and it gets annoying having to report it to people. By becoming an admin, I'll be able to support the wiki better and fight vandalism.Poketape 04:26, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You have all the qualities that an admin needs, generally good at everything at this wiki and I think you deserve it. Doc.Richtofen 19:50, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While it hurts me to give this vote I already have my vote on who will be the next admin. You certainly have the credentials but I think there are several more deserving users. 13:32, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Your a great editior and a fantastic guy. You have never gotten in to any fights and you are overall, well known by the community. However, like callofduty4 said, there are more deserving users out there. Keep up the excellent effort and you will eventually get it. 18:34, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per everyone else, but what's preventing me from opposing is the fact that you are an excellent editor. If this goes through, which is unlikely, that's fine with me. --  T    C    E   03:54, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Unfortunately it looks like without your vote this will fail.Poketape 05:09, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You're definitely trustworthy, and I believe that you would make the Wiki a better place if with your administrative powers. 23:55, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I have confidence in the way in which Poketape handles things on the wiki. Also, I do not think that "there are more deserving users" is a valid reason to exclude Poketape, who I would consider to be one of the better candidates. --Scottie theNerd 11:05, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He is a great editor, very friendly and very mature. Since I myself became an admin I have noticed the need for, well, more admins. With the fairly small amount we have now, the wiki often goes without an admin, and therefore cannot always respond to issues as they arise. With more good admins, like Poketape, this won't be as prevalent of a problem. 22:34, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Imrlybord7 (3)
Well, I figure I'll give it another shot. My biggest contributions to the wiki are listed on my user page. I am an extremely good writer and very knowledgeable when it comes to the programming and engine mechanics behind Call of Duty games (specifically MW, WaW, and MW2). In the past few months I have become very involved in reporting vandals to admins and fixing pages that have been vandalized. I have also been avoiding confrontation, for the most part. The only big argument I was in within the past few months was with Peter Griffen Boy, and I feel that I handled it about as well as anyone could. Long story short, I brought up his incident with Warpanda13 in his RfA as kindly and respectfully as I could because it had to be brought up and he himself said he was looking for feedback, and then he and Warpanda13 both flipped out on me. Both of them have apologized to me and things have cooled down. With adminship I will be able to deal with vandals on my own, manage articles better, and shape CoD wiki policy (what should and shouldn't be included in articles, stuff with usergroups, hopefully give the Manual of Style some more attention, etc.). Whether you support or oppose, be sure to jam the vote (SNL reference)! Imrlybord7 18:56, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I don't see why not. Imrlybord is a good editor, and an overall nice guy. Although he can get peeved at people who act stupid, who doesn't? He has full support from me and I'd like to see him being made admin over anyone else at this stage. Also, with CoD7 coming up, we can expect a lot of discussion, and we need Imrlybord's expertise to help like he did with MW2. His expertise could be put to even more use with more tools at his disposal. Also, albeit a minor reason I feel Imrlybord wasn't credited enough for his work with MW2, I mean his weapon list was copied used on many youtube videos. Who's with me? 21:08, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose -�You are not fit for the powers of being an Admin. You are rude, one of the most offensive people here, and just dont deserve the Admin title. Slowrider7 21:19, January 27, 2010 (UTC) User withdraws his vote. Slowrider7 01:03, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Three things. 1) Midterm exam week (over in 2 days). 2) College Application process (finished next week). 3) I am usually on many times throughout the day. This wasn't meant to sound snarky or anything, just to explain my situation. Imrlybord7 22:53, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - You were blocked just last month for a personal attack on another user. Now, I don't mean to be that guy who hides behind links as an argument, but I honestly think someone with people skills like that should not be given administrative powers that soon after a block. There is no question that some of your edits have been invaluable to the wiki, but your methods of solving community issues needs to improve a little bit more. 00:19, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Great editor, but the recent block and a history of conflicts with some users tarnishes this nomination. With due respect to Callofduty4, it's not okay for an admin to be occasionaly peeved off at people. An admin needs to be impartial and fair, lest he or she gets into a conflict of interest. The attitude shown in the recent block does not seem fitting for an admin. I also think the involvement with the Peter Griffin Boy and Warpanda13 incident was not professionally conducted, and while the intentions were good, the manner in which the issue progressed does not give me faith in his capacity to work with the community on an admin level. --Scottie theNerd 01:23, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - While you're an excellent editor, a nice guy, and very smart, I'd have to say that the thing that is concerning me is your argument with Razgriez. It was very intense, and though you both apologized, that argument was extremely unnecessary. However, I feel that you'd help this place a lot, organize it, and make policies better known. If I get to know you more, I might switch to support ---  T   C    E   03:58, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral leaning towards support - I think Razgriez should issue a statement whether he has completely forgiven you or not. If Razgriez is still mad at you then a rivalry between an admin and him would be disastrous. You're more intelligent than most editors. For the same reasons as Callofduty4, I think you might prove useful when COD7 footage leaks. Personally, -- User:Daoneandonlyharry User does not have enough mainspace edits... --  T    C    E   05:25, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

"more intelligent than most editors." And the understatement of the century award goes to...! Imrlybord7 16:02, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- You have gotten into much fights with PGB and I don't care who started it. also, you antaginize(don't know how to spell it) a lot of themWarpanda13 21:34, January 29, 2010 (UTC) User lacks mainspace edits. Please remember to sign, not just sign and delete the name so people can't find out who you are.Poketape 00:07, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Imrlybord's certainly one of the most, if not the most intelligent user on the wiki. He posts some of the most interesting, and cunning comments on blogs. I honestly have no problem with making him an admin, even though he has trouble keeping his cool. He's not the only one, I'm infamous here with certain users for not keeping my cool. Still, I prove myself to be admin material. I think Imrlybord has proved himself. I can't stress enough how much worse the wiki would be without Imrlybord. The MW2 articles would not be in the shape they are in, without the time he spent researching MW2 info. He spent a lot of his time for his benefit, and he was never thanked properly for his work. The sole fact he spent his time for our benefit shows how selfless he is. He'd do anything to help us and the wiki. He's one of the most dedicated users, even though he doesn't have the highest editcount or does not spend as much on the wiki as some people do. Don't worry, I can expect him to be on when info regarding CoD7 starts pouring in. I think he could benefit from admin tools more than anyone else at the moment. Adminship is not extra rights, it is simply extra tools that Imrlybord can most certainly be trusted with. 22:51, January 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that Imrlybord is an intelligent and highly capable editor. However, being an admin isn't just having access to admin tools. It's about building and maintaining a positive, productive environment that welcomes other editors and fosters communication and understanding. If an admin gets into personal conflicts with users, sure, they can still do a good job, but they also run the wiki community in the ground by deterring other editors. It's bad image for the wiki to reward users with more privileges and control when they violate rules. I will admit, there are times when you, Callofduty4, have put me off from editing with some of your comments and actions. Just a quick look at the comments made by Imrlybord on other RfAs don't exactly give me the image of someone who can keep positive relations with the community. I don't doubt that he's willing to do anything for the wiki, but if that includes flaming the hell out of editors, I'm a bit more reluctant than most.
 * That isn't to say that Imrlybord shouldn't be admin, but I'd like to see a longer-term change of attitude to prove that he has the maturity, civility and professionalism that many would expect from an admin. --Scottie theNerd 11:02, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support Per callofduty4's comment. He's done a lot of work on Modern Warfare 2 content. 01:37, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Imrlybord7 has those capabilities. He's a nice person and I honestly think he will have no trouble as an admin. And how have I put you off editing? I've done too much here to be let down again. 14:39, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose- He's a very rude and impatient user. Has started many flamewars between me and him, and has brough up my warpanda situation many times as an attempt to hurt me. I'm sorry, if he stops this, he deserves it. Letting him be an admin, will make him block a lot of people. He's so smart, he's strange and stupid. Peter Griffen Boy 21:28, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- I never apoligized for defending myself. That outright was a lie, when he was talking about Warpanda 13. Peter Griffen Boy 23:23, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - "has brough up my warpanda situation many times as an attempt to hurt me." Anyone who has read our exchange knows that pretty much all of the incivility was on your side of the table. I honestly can't believe you would even bring this up again. "I never apologized for defending myself. That outright was a lie when he was talking about Warpanda 13." Apparently you don't remember the blog post where you apologized for being "a douche" (your words, not mine). This blog was posted after all arguments had ended. Here's a direct quote from your apologetic blog post. "I must say for all that I've done, I am truly sorry, to the following: Imrllybord7." Apparently you didn't really mean "all that I've done." If anyone wants to get the real facts on what happened, read [|this], [|this], and this. Imrlybord7 05:31, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I supported him last time and I'll support him again. He has definitely improved on his interactions with people, but there are still a few incidents. Continue to work on this, 'Bord, but I definitely feel I can trust you with the tools, and I feel the wiki will be better off with you having them. 22:34, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The way Imrlybord always comes up with an excellent counter statement tells a lot about him, eh? 21:40, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - A great user, great help to the entire community, completely deserving and, let's face it, you can't mess around with him. Doc.Richtofen 15:54, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It's hard to denounce or ignore the fact that Imrlybord has done a lot for the site, notably some of the original Modern Warfare 2 coverage and article development. Though, while he has edited, he has often gotten into arguments with hardly the most civil of manners. Also, as even seen here, he acts like he is more important than other users, often openly stating it. Whether or not it is true is beside the point. A key thing an administrator would need to comprehend is the concept of AEAE, which I don't think he either completely understand or acts upon. An administrator saying "I am more important than you" would most certainly not be beneifical to whoever it is said to. 00:45, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Bovell
I Peter nominate Bovell, because he is a good editor, never picks on fights, and is a great templete maker and editor. Look at his sandbox and you'll see waht I mean.


 * I accept my nomination. 22:04, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Suprisingly I Support- As the nominator smart one. Peter Griffen Boy 21:33, January 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Peter, you came back? -- 2nd_Lieutenant.png8oh8sig.png  T   C    E   21:42, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - User has made good contributions and has done some good anti vandal work. I honestly have no problem with Imrlybord and Bovell being made admins. They both deserve it and could be a great help. 21:54, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Pretty much a flawless user. Imrlybord7 02:55, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I say yes. Good editor, good anti-vandal work and generally a good user. Cpl. Wilding 02:56, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I see no issue with Bovell assuming admin responsibilities. Excellent record, professional conduct and good familiarity with how the wiki works. --Scottie theNerd 03:40, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support He's a very steady user, makes a lot of edits each month, especially in January. Basically what everybody else said. 13:21, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Frankly I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner. WouldYouKindly 14:15, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Excellent user. Should have gotten it before I did, quite frankly 22:34, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Can't see a reason not to make him a mod, and honestly, that's a pretty rare thing to see. TNT LotLP 08:44, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Flawless user. Doc.Richtofen 19:19, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Maj.Gage
Now I think this is the third time perhaps. I have of 2,200 edits and a good reputation among the wiki. I've been around since June 2009 (I don't know if that is too early or not). I believe I am up to the challenge of being admin.   Maj.Gage   Talk . 10:48, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Outstanding contribution record; keen attitude and friendly. Has been great to work with and I have confidence in his ability to work on an admin level. --Scottie theNerd 12:04, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Amazing record, tons of good edits, hasn't been in any fights that I've seen.... --  T    C    E   17:26, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all above. Doc.Richtofen 19:28, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I've decided that I have no problem with there being lots of admins as long as they are all worthy, and Gage is definitely among the worthy. Imrlybord7 00:50, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Same thing I said about Poketape. 21:58, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Your an excellent user, you would be a great admin. 01:55, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

EightOhEight
I'll keep this somewhat short. Whenever I see EightOhEight posting on a blog or a discussion page, he has a cool head. He has edited a lot. I find him trustworthy. I don't have a thought in my mind that he would abuse his powers if granted to him. 00:45, February 4, 2010 (UTC)