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 this set of requirements:
 * Have been here for at least a month.
 * Have edited at least a thousand times.
 * Be civil.
 * Have no record of serious offenses (E.g. vandalism, personal attacks).
 * Be known and trusted by others.

There is a discussion about administrator requirements feel free to contribute your thoughts.

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 subsection lists most vote types.
 * Support - A positive vote.
 * Strong Support - A very positive vote.
 * Weak Support - A positive vote, but the voter has not ruled out oppose.
 * 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.
 * Pending - Vote not yet decided; essentially the same as neutral.
 * Oppose - A negative vote.
 * Strong Oppose - A very negative vote.
 * Weak Oppose - A negative vote, but the voter has not ruled out support.
 * 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.
 * Comment - A comment.
 * : - a comment made in response to another comment can simply be indented.
 * 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.

CodExpert
Hello, I am CodExpert, most of you may know me and some of you may not. I am here today to nominate myself for Adminstrative rights. I feel I have made some good contributions and have helped users. I have done my best to participate in forums and be as active as I can, by reverting vandalism, undoing bad edits, and spellchecking articles. I have accumulated edits on the wiki. I am a very active user, being on this wiki for several hours almost every day editing articles, reverting vandalism, helping users, and trying to do my best on the wiki to make it better. I have been well-mannered and friendly to other users and I have done my best to work up from that and improve this wiki. I am trying to improve this wiki the best I can and I see no possible way of ending that in the future. I promise that if I do pass I will never abuse my powers and I will treat users fairly unless they have done damage to the wiki and/or it's users, I believe that if I get Sysop powers I will deal with trolls and other vandals more effectively, I will assist wikians in need of help and help them to contribute to the wiki and not vandalize if they have done so in the past. I will say my opinion and stand by it unless the facts prove me wrong. Thank you all for your time. 16:29, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - You are the only user that deserves Adminship right now CE. Your on late to protect against late-night vandals and you have perfect behaviour. Nice job.Slowrider7 16:34, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support- 7000+ edits is a lot. I always see you on the activity feed dealing with trolls and vandals. You definitely deserve to become an admin.

Support - Your dedication to the wiki is outstanding. You would really benefit the wiki with admin tools. 16:47, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The 7,000 edits you have, added with the great integrity you uphold yourself with and the outstanding maturity = one of the most qualified requests I've ever seen. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez Reportin' for duty. 17:02, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per JJR, plus the fact that you are a friendly user would be an added benefit to you being an admin. - 17:06, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per COD4. Doc.  Richtofen  17:09, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - User has been a great anti-vandal and reverting dumb edits. He single-handingly saved the real life articles from deletion. He used to be a blog shitposter but he's really cleaned up his act. Has a perfect behavior record. Darkman 4 17:25, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all, he demonstrates maturity and friendlyness towards all users he encounters.  Talk 18:06, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. The Z(Talk) 18:10, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He is a great user whohas a great deal of maturity. Maj.Gage Talk. 18:15, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Darkman and CoD4 Blinzy45 18:47, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all.19:34, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - CodExpert is a mature, responsible user, and I have no doubt in my mind that he would be a great admin. 19:55, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone.   404 Error   File Not Found  Please Try Again 19:57, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks a lot for your votes, guys. It means a lot. 20:47, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - CodExpert is a great contributor to this community. Not only that, but he is mature and nice. I think that CodExpert could only help this place out even more with admin tools. He is a fitting administrator, and I hope to see him on the list soon. This is SkullRod, out. 02:01, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Imrlybord7 05:40, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You have been a great help to the mainspace and other users, and I honestly think you deserve an administrative position. 🇨🇩

Neutral - You're a great guy, but it is undeniable that this recent business with TheManOfIron has involved more than myself. However you are a magnificent editor and one of our best contributors. TimSim (talk) 10:05, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - CodExpert has become a cordial member of the community and engages in discussion in a mature manner. He has also been doing an exceptional job at anti-vandal work, and would benefit from administrative powers in this way. Although I am slightly concerned about the flame bait incident that happened a few weeks back, CodExpert admitted that he was at fault, and that takes integrity. With commitment to the wiki, and a very much active user, CodExpert is certainly qualified for receiving an upgrade in user rights. 13:27, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Support - he realizes that improving the wiki does not mean making the mainspace better necessarily, but requires examining flaws in the very core of the "system" (the policies) and actually tries to proactively improve the way the wiki runs. TimSim (talk) 22:07, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Expierienced, helpful, friendly, would make a model admin. Sgt.Maj. Delta  4-7 22:11, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Not to sound pushy or overeager, but with 20 Supports and no opposes; shouldn't someone pass it? I know it's only been two days but still... 22:48, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'll inform Chia.11:30, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * RfAs must remain open for the minimum time. There's no reason to waiver that requirement. --Scottie theNerd 11:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination - 13:08, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Sgt. Bravo  Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all!?  Skaterman. 23   18:30, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - There is not much left to say. Per all  Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 08:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Neutral Oppose - I'm not sure if just another admin is needed, I really see the need for somebody that will put his focus on the War Room more. I see only one candidate that I believe is needed and would fulfill the role completely.
 * That was a statement not of comparison, but more of that I've only seen one candidate so far that I think is right for the position, sadly he is not you. I am by no means favoring one user and opposing all others.
 * In the past, I really haven't seen much participation in the War Room, and while your contributions are not disputable, I'm not sure if you'd really look at all of the base problems of this wiki.

Neutral- Would say support, but I don't like how he handled himself in the whole de-sysoping procedures.nlm gr  01:17, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

WHISKEY35
To all concerned, I do hereby submit for your approval, a Request for Administrator status. I know that I am fairly new to the Wiki but I know that I can, and have been an asset to the Wiki. I have been active on the Wiki ever since I joined on 27 March 2010. I came here looking for info on Titles and Emblems and stayed on because I saw the need to better those pages. I have found that this wiki is in constant need of attention due to the vandalism that occurs here daily. I have made well over 6000 edits, equaling over 400 to files needing licensing, over 3500 welcoming New Users, numerous reverts made by vandals, numerous categorizing to pages in need. I have also helped lot of new users with questions. If I don't know the answer then I will direct them to someone who can help them. I am also active in the War Room Discusions. Some may say that all I do mostly is welcome New Users. While that maybe true, I believe that it is very important for letting the 'New" user know what the policies of the Wiki are and also to let them know help is available if they need it. Also they can check my edit counts and see that welcoming is not all I do in the Wiki. I am not merely interested in welcoming but the overall maintaining if the Wiki. I am usually on the Wiki all the time and live in a time zone that permits me to be on when most admins are sleeping or away. Therefore, if I had the tools available to me I could take immediate and appropriate action to stop vandalization of our Wiki. I believe I have demonstrated a mature and professional attitude while here on the Wiki and have made numerous friends while here. I do thank the Admins and Users that have helped me along the way and I will be here for a long time to come. Your kind consideration in a positive approval would be greatly appreciated and I promise to do my best in my administration of this wiki. Sincerely yours,  Talk  17:48, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Outstanding, mature, and friendly user, greatly deserves administrative rights. 17:50, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Great, mature, nice. I agree with CodExpert. 17:54, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per CodExpert. The Z(Talk) 18:08, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per CodExpert -  18:11, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He is a very mature user and has welcomed SEVERAL user to this wiki, which means he has great skills with other people. I believe he has what it takes. Maj.Gage Talk. 18:09, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per CE. Doc.  Richtofen  18:26, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per CodExpert. 19:55, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone.   404 Error   File Not Found  Please Try Again 20:00, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Sactage --

Neutral, leaning towards support - I dont know you enough to support you, but the paragraph you posted seems pretty promising. Slowrider7 22:26, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support Damn good user that is dedicated to the wiki. He fixed the licensing for the images that didn't have one last month, so he's definatly dedicated. Has a perfect behavior record. 00:48, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Imrlybord7 05:40, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You really deserve administrative privileges because of your amicable behavior, your desire to help others, and your combat against vandalism. 🇨🇩

Neutral, Practically Support - I regret having to vote a neutral, but as with CE, I'm not the only one who's had harsh words with or about TMOI. I am proud to say though, that if I had to choose one new user out of all to become a sysop, it would be you, you're a great guy and an absolutely WHiskey (hell I had to come up with a new adjective!!!!) editor. TimSim (talk) 10:13, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Strong Support - He's done too much for this wiki not to deserve this. TimSim (talk) 10:57, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Definitely someone who has the patience and willingness to undertake admin duties actively. Has shown a definite commitment to many aspects of the wiki. --Scottie theNerd 16:23, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - WHISKEY35 is a great contributor and has done a lot for this wiki, but he has lashed out at others for some little things and I'm not sure if he handles everything in the correct manor. Per this. (That was in response to this.)  16:36, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - Per my earlier comment. 16:50, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - WHISKEY35 certainly has the determination to help the wiki as well as high activity, but typing in all caps on numerous occasions is not a great style of behavior to have as an administrator. He can get his point across without "screaming" at the people he's talking with, and it is especially best for him not to feed the the trolls. 20:41, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Point well taken Bovell and I will remember that in the future. Blinzy45 and I are friends and there is no animosity between us. And I wont be doing any more "screaming" in the future. Thanks for the critique as it only helps me to grow into a finer, more mature user!  Talk 20:57, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If Whiskey did that more often I would have voted oppose, but it is definitely somewhat of a rarity. Imrlybord7 23:30, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support- Great user, welcomes new accounts very well. Also helps around the wiki a lot.  Munchable901  |TALK?  18:29, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - WHISKEY is a very valuable user. I haven't seen him lash out at anybody, and I'm sure if he did he realizes it was a mistake. WHISKEY would be a great addition to the admin team. 10:53, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Awesome editor who deals with vandalism greatly. 11:00, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Sgt. Bravo  Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I, for one, don't really see you being very active, and earlier on, about two weeks ago, all I saw was you welcoming users. I feel you are not ready, sorry mate.  Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 08:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thanks for the criticism, I will make it a point to be more active. 20PX_SIG.gif  Talk 12:30, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Dan, where have you been? WHISKEY is one of the most active users on the wiki. - Prestige10sigstb.jpg StB_Flag.jpg 12:22, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * All I ever saw him doing is welcoming users, and maybe some un-doing of vandalism. I never saw him actively contributing to the wiki. Or maybe I'm blind... Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 12:28, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Whiskey is very much active, he has 6,843 edits and well, the rest are in his contribs. He's on all night almost everyday... 12:19, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Normally, I don't vote on other RfA's if I already have one up, but this is where I make an exception. Out of your 6,000+ edits, over 4,000 of them are user talk edits. I don't see welcoming new users as an admin quality job. I realize you've been editing and licensing images, but I fail to see how that makes you more fit for admin rights than other users with RfAs (not including me, I refuse to refer to myself in other votes). There is no doubt in my mind you'd be able to help fight vandals, but I don't think you're ready yet. I thought long and hard about this and thus I must oppose. Cpl. Wilding 18:10, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm going to point out flaws in your argument, first off: you already referred to yourself once before doing so again in saying you don't refer to yourself, so already I see holes in the validity of your oppose. Secondly, your RFA seems to be failing, while WHISKEY has the support of a bureaucrat, several administrators and the rest of the most active wikians, so, honestly, I see a motivation for you to attempt to derail him, as he's got opposition from other users he's been quite blunt with. And if he doesn't welcome, who will? I would but certainly I love working with him as a colleague to that end. However, a large amount of his talk page edits are aiding those new users, which is undoubtedly an action admins should take, his mainspace edits are few because they are more extensive than most edits, the job he does is that of an administrator, all that I see missing from his work is the actual blocking or deleting, because he hasn't those flags yet, on another note, how do you know, I rarely see you active?

Cpl. Dunn
Hi everyone, for those of you who don't know me, I'm Cpl. Dunn. I am here to nominate myself for adminship. I have tried to be a very helpful user, making userboxes for usergroups and making signatures for people. I have made edits, and  of those are mainspace edits. I have welcomed lots of new users, and made my own welcome templates with lots of useful information for them on them. I have no record of vandalism, save for a small message when I first started editing on Wikia. I have reverted a lot of vandalism and reported it to admins, to get it dealt with. I have always tried to be a mature and responsible user, and I assure you, if I get the admin tools, I will use them responsibly. Thanks for your time.

Support - With his editcount, that just shows the time he put in to make this wiki better. He's a great guy, and deserves Administrative rights. 19:54, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per CodExpert. <font style="background:darkred">  404 Error   File Not Found  Please Try Again 19:59, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Cpl. Dunn is a great editor. He is nice and mature. Also, I agree with CE. 20:02, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Dunn has consistantly proven to be an asset to the wiki any time he is online. I have the firm belief that he would be a great Admin. He demonstrates maturity and friendliness towards others at all times and helps out new users when asked. His Contributions to the wiki prove that he is a dedicated user and deserves the position of Admin <font color="Green"> Talk  20:05, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

GODLY SUPPORT A great user and friend<font color="Gold"> T <font color="Crimson"> C <font color="Gold"> E  <font color="Crimson"> B 21:07, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Well liked and no issues. Has helped here and there and is currently working on our Topright project. I'd say he's dedicated enough to be an admin. Darkman 4 00:48, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I was somewhat reluctant to cast this vote because Dunn doesn't really stand out in any particular way, but the more I thought about it the more I realized that he can be trusted with administrative privileges. He is always civil and has demonstrated an immense dedication to the wiki. Imrlybord7 05:39, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - you've done enormous amounts for this wiki but I don't see how administrator flags would be necessary for your work. You have done a great amount for this wiki and are a great guy, you should receive every medal we have. TimSim (talk) 10:18, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Between the amount of time he dedicates to the wiki and his exceptional attitude, I think that giving Dunn the ability to delete pages, block users and IPs, and protect pages (+ a few other things) will benefit the wiki. Imrlybord7 13:15, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Change to neutral - As of now I'm only supporting one user for admin, all other of my votes will remain neutral, as I only see the need for a new admin that is on when few others are, as a sort of "watchman" if you will, and my vote is cast for him. TimSim (talk) 13:18, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per CodExpert. The Z(Talk) 14:43, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Cpl. Dunn is a very hard working editor and he has done a lot for this community. I believe that with admin tools, Dunn could only help the place out more. He's dedicated, mature and knows how to deal with stuff correctly. 20:27, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Whiskey. Doc.  Richtofen  20:50, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Dunn deserves adminship a lot. Great editor, mature user and a great friend. 21:01, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all <font size="3" color="DarkOrange">Sgt.Maj. <font size="3" color="red">Delta <font size="3" color="DarkGoldenrod"> 4-7 22:12, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Dunn, you are a great editor with dedication to both the mainspace and other users. I frequently see your vandal reports, and with sysop privileges you will be an even better user. 🇨🇩

Comment - Thank you all for your support! 22:51, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support- He has done so much for this wiki, and he is a part of many usergroups that help this wiki, he is mature and has never stepped out of line and has welcomed many new users and made signitures/userboxes for many people. Price25 10:34, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support to Death-Dunn is a great contributer to the wiki and he deserves adminship. Rampantlion513 20:33, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Adminship isn't a reward. No one "deserves" it. --Scottie theNerd 12:06, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination. <font size="2.5" color="cyan">Sgt. Bravo <font size="1" color="sky blue"> Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - I see only one candidate that I believe will fulfill the responsibilities of an admin completely.
 * That was a statement not of comparison, but more of that I've only seen one candidate so far that I think is right for the position, sadly he is not you. I am by no means favoring one user and opposing all others.
 * You've made a lot of contributions, and you're a great editor, but I'm not sure whether you're honestly going to participate in the work of revising, drafting, or reviewing policy on the wiki, and I honestly am not sure if the extra tools will allow you to do much more benefit, as you aren't really on at times when admins aren't readily available as far as I've seen.

CoD addict
CoD addict is the first of hopefully three users that I will be nominating for adminship. Before I discuss him specifically, I would just like to say that I am nominating these users because not only do I feel that they would make good administrators, but I feel that they would make better administrators than any other users with open RFAs. That is a compliment to them, not an insult to other users. Now let's get on topic.

CoD addict is an extremely dedicated editor with a focus on the mainspace. His edits are always of the utmost quality and he never leaves a job half-done. However, he also exhibits a satisfactory level of community involvement, during which he always presents himself as kind, polite, professional, and intelligent. I believe that he has done more than enough to prove that he will make an excellent administrator. And addict, if there is anything you would like to add to this please feel free to do so. Imrlybord7 08:29, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As nominator. Imrlybord7 08:29, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral leaning towards Support - Per the nomination, I just have to look at your contributions and history a bit more before I make this a support. TimSim (talk) 10:21, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - Per nomination. 11:07, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Judging by your contribs you are intelligent and a good editor. You appear to be extremely dedicated. From what I've seen from his contribs that were in War Room topics, he does seem very intelligent, polite, mature, and proffesional. Well, all in all, per nomination. 17:26, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Bord. Doc.  Richtofen  20:56, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - I see only one candidate that I believe will fulfill the responsibilities of an admin completely.
 * That was a statement not of comparison, but more of that I've only seen one candidate so far that I think is right for the position, sadly he is not you. I am by no means favoring one user and opposing all others.
 * I haven't seen you edit much and I don't really see how you'll benefit the wiki any greater as an admin than as a normal contributor. I also rarely see you working on reviewing the wiki's policy in such a way that aims to improve the wiki.

Oppose - I feel there are better candidates. CoD Addict is a great editor, but there are better candidates who I feel will do the job better. 21:03, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Cpl. Wilding(3)
I know that I don't have nearly as many edits as other users on here. I know that not everybody knows me. What I do know is that judging from my past two RfAs, some of our admins trust me already, some (Callofduty4) have worked with me on other wikis and know that I can be trusted with admin powers. The only things I can offer to prove my worth are the fact that I run my own Wiki (Task Force 589 Wiki) which I feel is good quality, in both articles and general layout. The second I can bring is out of my 1,000+ edits, 1,013 of them are mainspace. Thank you for your time, mi amigos. Cpl. Wilding 14:27, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Seeing as how you dont have many edits, and you dont have much knowledge about templates because I had to fix the format of this, I dont think your ready.

Oppose - Too many of the above will be given, we actually will have enough admins, and honestly I rarely see you about.

Oppose - Haven't seen much activity from you in major community discussions. I don't really care much about your other wikis or your 1000+ edits; what we need are more willing admins who have the patience and consistency to deal with wiki issues. --Scottie theNerd 16:13, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Have not participated in major community discussions and haven't got many edits. I don't think you're fit for adminship yet. 16:27, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I haven't seen you active here enough, I haven't seen you partake in any major community discussions, edits don't matter as it is 'quality over quantity' (I do still appreciate the mainspace editing though), Running your own wiki doesn't really matter over on this one. Sorry, you just don't seem to be that ready for administrative rights yet. 17:23, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - A very seniored user who has proven time and time again that he can be trusted. People might say that making you an admin won't do much if you don't become more active; that's fine. I know that whenever you are here you act just as an admin should and feel that we would be remiss not to grant you these privileges. Imrlybord7 19:45, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I haven't seen you active in a while. 19:55, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Bord. Doc.  Richtofen  20:58, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I realize I couldn't get the templates to work. That's mainly because I haven't worked with templates for a while in general, plus I haven't used said templates before, so... Anyway, yes, I know I haven't been active lately. I've been busy in RL and had a couple minutes to type this out and I was making quick changes in a hurry. I can also say that I haven't contributed to War Room discussions because, to be frank, what I want to say gets said before I get in, usually in better words than I could've put it in, so my opinion is basically useless. Cpl. Wilding 02:41, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - That's not the kind of opinion to go in with. Every vote counts even if the same sentiments have already been expressed, and it helps reaffirm the consensus when people agree. Besides, I think you are probably a bit more eloquent than a decent amount of our userbase. Although I didn't like that comment of yours, I will not withdraw my support because I feel that you would quickly rise to the task if you were given adminship. Imrlybord7 02:47, June 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, Bord. I was a bit stressed when I wrote that, plus it was late, and...bah, I'm not even going to try to make an excuse. All I can say is whatever happens, happens. Cpl. Wilding 14:36, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Dunn. <font size="2.5" color="cyan">Sgt. Bravo <font size="1" color="sky blue"> Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see you active at all, lately.  Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 08:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The only thing I will say to those who oppose: Look though my edits, and disregard my activity level. Nobody can edit every single day. My policy is "quality over quantity" and I feel the quality of my edits overshadows the quantity of my edits. This doesn't mean that I think my edits are higher quality than current admins or other users who have RfAs: quite the opposite. I only ask that you think over what you have voted. Danke. Cpl. Wilding 19:14, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Raven's wing
A long time sleeper pick of mine for future adminship, Raven's wing doesn't have a particularly high edit count, nor has he contributed vastly to the wiki. However, in his ~1800 edits, he has simply never made a mistake. From mainspace edits to blog comments to war room discussions, he never fails to impress me with his intelligence, professionalism, and civility. The only misgiving I have about him is something of a lack of self confidence, but that has to be one of the smallest gripes I have ever had about an administrative candidate. Although I don't expect many people to agree, I beseech you to look through his contributions thoroughly before casting your vote. And wing, if there is anything you would like to add to this please feel free to do so. Imrlybord7 19:53, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as nominator. Imrlybord7 19:53, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - Per nomination. 19:55, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination. 20:00, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Imrlybord7. Doc.  Richtofen  20:59, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Hes a somewhat snob, especially in blogs. Slowrider7 23:31, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Imrlybord7 Jeffnickers 18:18, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Slowrider has a point, but Raven's wing is a helpful user. So I am neutral. <font size="2.5" color="cyan">Sgt. Bravo <font size="1" color="sky blue"> Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I see better candidates. TimSim (talk) 13:42, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - Per all. 07:20, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - I, for one, see better candidates, and, as the second, I don't see you active, apart from blogs.  Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 08:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I've never heard of him. He should be more active. User didn't sign. 20:02, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination, I haven't see Raven much, but from what I've seen he's right for the job. Smuff 21:16, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - I see only one candidate that I believe will fulfill the responsibilities of an admin completely.
 * That was a statement not of comparison, but more of that I've only seen one candidate so far that I think is right for the position, sadly he is not you. I am by no means favoring one user and opposing all others.
 * I also don't see many contributions from you, what will you do as an administrator that you can't do as is?

Oppose - I think there are better candidates, and I'm not fond of making more than 3 new admins. Don't get me wrong though, Raven is a fine editor. 21:03, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ukimies
Although Ukimies hasen't been active in a while, he has been involved in community discussions and nearly has 3000 edits. He never fails anyone and has a theory for anything. Imrlybord was going to nominate him for adminship but it looks I've beaten him to it. He is kind, mature and nice to any user and has welcomed enough new users. I think he deserves adminship now.20:10, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As nominator. 20:10, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination. <font style="background:red">  Lima Oscar Zulu Zulu Alpha

Comment - Ukimies hasn't been active because he's on vacation.

Weak Support - Per nomination. 20:19, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination, more or less. Imrlybord7 20:23, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination. 20:28, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination. Doc.  Richtofen  21:02, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination. 21:02, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't see a fit. TimSim (talk) 21:09, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Darth. Slowrider7 23:33, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Ukimies is a huge help to the wiki. 🇨🇩

Support - Per nomination. The Z(Talk) 22:29, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Mostly per nomination. <font style="background:darkred">  404 Error   File Not Found  Please Try Again 11:50, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Darth. <font size="2.5" color="cyan">Sgt. Bravo <font size="1" color="sky blue"> Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - Per nomination and per all.  Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 08:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - I see only one candidate that I believe will fulfill the responsibilities of an admin completely.
 * That was a statement not of comparison, but more of that I've only seen one candidate so far that I think is right for the position, sadly he is not you. I am by no means favoring one user and opposing all others.
 * Users don't "deserve" adminship, and as with everyone else, I really don't see you doing much that is "adminly", and I don't foresee you doing much you can't do now.

AdvancedRookie
I nominate myself for the role of Adminship. I have been at this wiki since August 2009 and managed to get around 3,100 edits. While my edit count may not compare to others, what I have is experience and I seem to get along well with other users. I think I will serve the wiki well as an admin as I will be able to do late night shifts and I am very active. Over the years I have found Call of Duty Wiki to become a great place filled with great people. The wiki has taught me so much and I would be honoured to be an admin on it and serve it well. This is AdvancedRookie, reporting for duty.AdvancedRookie 22:08, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - nothing exceptional. TimSim (talk) 22:18, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Darthkenobi0. 22:21, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Your popular around here, but you never really did anything except edit and comment. Slowrider7 23:33, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Generally underwhelming war room comments. You need to work on better articulating your opinions and backing them up with more solid reasoning. That's really my only complaint. Imrlybord7 23:35, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Advanced Rookie has done a lot to this community, he's mature, has a good understanding of the place and how it runs, he also participates in community discussions. I think that he has the qualities of a true administrator. 03:17, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He knows what he's doing, and he's someone that I'd trust as an admin.

Support - Advance Rookie is a great editor and friend. He knows what he is doing and I agree with SkullRod. 20:37, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Bord, Slowrider and Darth. <font size="2.5" color="cyan">Sgt. Bravo <font size="1" color="sky blue"> Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - A well tempered guy that knows his way around the wiki, can take care of problems, and usually has a rational view on the subject. Shotrocket6 13:37, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - A nice guy but hasn't been active in community discussions though. 13:51, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Excepr from the usual blogging or 1-2 mainspace edits, I never saw you doing anything really exceptional.  Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 08:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I didn't do anything exceptional, yet I still became admin. Doc.  Richtofen  19:34, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - AdvancedRookie often fails to explain his opinions, and has a ridiculously high amount of blog edits compared to everything else. As a person, yes, as an editor, no. Smuff 21:11, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Candidates should be considered for their appropriateness overall; not just their editing. Prolific editors don't necessarily make good admins. --Scottie theNerd 04:20, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Cod1(6)
I nominate myself for the role of Adminship. I have been at this wiki since January 2009 and managed to get around 2,600 edits. While my edit count may not compare to others, what I have is experience. I'm a very nice and mature user who treats all users with respect. I will protect pages and ban vandals if needed. So please vote me for Adminship, I'll get the job done! So everyone what do you think? 22:11, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose Pending - what sets you apart from the others that are filling this page with RFAs? TimSim (talk) 22:18, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - If all these other RfA's pass, we really won't need more admins.

Response - I've been here longer than all of these users, and I'm a great user.

Comment - I support CodExpert and WHISKEY35, I'll consider you and CoD Addict, depending, I really don't know enough about whether you two will actively influence policy and the actual operation of the Wiki to fit the sysop role. TimSim (talk) 22:28, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - CallofDuty4 thinks I would be a great admin. 22:34, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Yes, that is Callofduty4's opinion. Just because he feels that way doesn't mean everyone else does. 22:39, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I would support you but we have many RFA requests now! I'm supporting CodExpert, WHISKEY35, Darthkenobi0 and Cpl. Dunn at the moment. 11:28, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Too many RfAs, and I never see you around. --Slowrider7 23:30, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Your activity is too sporadic and you haven't done anything significant enough to make up for that. If you were to become consistently active I would most likely support you in the future. Imrlybord7 23:33, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Your edits area contructive and I believe you have what it takes. Maj.Gage Talk. 01:05, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks Gage :)

Support - Although we already have a lot of requests for adminship, that does not mean that all of them will pass. We should only have 3 new administrators. I find that you are great editor and you spend your time here constructively. I feel that you have what it takes to wield the adminstrative tools and I believe that you are capable of wielding them correctly. 03:08, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Too many RfAs, if [at least] 3 of these pass, we won't really need anymore admins. 13:06, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't grounds for a negative vote. If we're down-voting because there are "too many" nominations, why not down-vote everyone...or, ironically, close the RfA page? --Scottie theNerd 13:16, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - As with last time, I'm not impressed by the number of your edits or the frequency of your activity. I'm not convinced that you would be an active admin. --Scottie theNerd 13:16, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - You are too impatient, not a very good trait for an admin. -- http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071012163228/callofduty/images/d/df/Smiley.gif <font size="2" color="red">Ghost Rider Talk 18:22, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Cod1 is a constructive and friendly user. I believe he will use the tools of the administrator wisely and help this wiki even more. Per Skullrod. 21:19, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - @Bravo Five-Nine: I've been waiting for an entire year, that's not impatient.

Support — Cod1 has contributed greatly to the wiki, especially on NDS related topics, which received little attention from the community. 22:22, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Pending - Per Darth. <font size="2.5" color="cyan">Sgt. Bravo <font size="1" color="sky blue"> Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I looked through your contributions and your edits are not very steady. Some days you will make a lot of edits but at other times you will only make a few. We need admins that will be consistent, especially with Black Ops and all the new info that will be coming out all through the summer. 13:47, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not really a valid point. One can frequently visit the wiki without making tons of edits every day. Good admins don't necessarily have to click the Save Page button x amount of times daily. --Scottie theNerd 17:54, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I haven't seen much activity from you. I haven't seen you participate in any major War Room activities. Maybe in the next RfA I would support you. --CodExpert 16:14, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The fact you made that blog with swears in the question has shown that you obviously lack the maturity to do a job like this. Normally I don't have a problem with it, but putting them in the title like that is a different matter. Your editing is sporadic at best, and like Bord said, I haven't seen anything mindbogglingly spectacular recently. Smuff 17:49, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I've seen nothing out of you for a long time until this. <font style="background:silver"> Poketape Talk  20:47, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - I see only one candidate that I believe will fulfill the responsibilities of an admin completely.
 * That was a statement not of comparison, but more of that I've only seen one candidate so far that I think is right for the position, sadly he is not you. I am by no means favoring one user and opposing all others.
 * I don't think you understand Adminship, and I don't think you're really anything exceptional or active enough, our edits are good but adminship is not about merit or popularity.

Neutral - I have no doubts about your ability (although sometimes you can be immature) - but your staggered activity is what worries me. Prove to me you will become active and I might support you. Giving admin tools to a user who then becomes inactive ( Icepacks ) is pointless. 21:03, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Darthkenobi0
Most of you know me as Darth, Kenobi or Tim. Here on the Call of Duty Wiki, while I do have many social edits, I also edit the mainspace often, making more extensive edits than most (especially overhauls). Beyond that, you can see for yourselves that I help out the wiki as much as I can.

I feel that I could use sysop tools to more effectively and expediently deal with vandals, troll, or potential incidents. I have experience with wiki markup and am able to use most commands and am able to help users identify any problems they are having. I run a wiki myself, so have experience with the basic infrastructure of a wiki. I am quite involved in the War Room, and helped draft the User of the Month vote's new format, and have been very active in the discussion about Administrator requirements and the new medal system, as well as being the author of several other drafts, and involved in the discussions involving voting on RFAs.

I'm usually quite amiable (so I've been told) and am rarely rude. I have a fairly good reputation on the wiki, have reverted a large amount of vandalism, helped in the Overhaul Project, and welcomed many new users. Honestly, I feel that I could use these tools responsibly and effectively, thank you for your time.

Support -- as nominator -- <font style="background:darkolivegreen">  E ight  O h   E ight  18:54, June 28, 2010 (UTC) -- Posted as protest, now an official request.

Oppose - Per my vote in his last NfA. 19:03, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support Great user. <font style="background:silver"> Poketape Talk  20:47, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure whether to be insulted that I'm part of Eight's ragequit from the wiki, or flattered...

Neutral - Would be a good late-night sysop, but I'm not really sure.

Oppose - While Darthkenobi0 may have been nominated by someone else this time, I believe the points made only three days ago still stand. tl;dr version: He needs to develop a consistent style of behavior, as conversations such as this are not acceptable. 01:12, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that my behavior was far from desirable, but I would like to point out the fact that I was baited, and received no block for my reactions (I bluntly stated to Imrlybord7, Chiafriend12, Callofduty4, and Doc.Richtofen that I would happily take a block if they deemed it necessary). And I do acknowledge the consistency argument, but as you might note, I am generally quite polite, and only react to an extreme against blatant trolls and/or flamers, every single of which has received blocks for baiting and trolling. Also, I feel I can calmly handle situations (as I did last night on Rampantlion's blog) in the future, as I have for the most part, in the past.

Oppose- Per Bovell<font color="#FF00FF">nlm gr  01:14, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate if you would explain your vote beyond "Per Bovell", while I respect his vote, would you please elaborate more upon your own? Thank you.

Support - He's a hoss, what more can i say? Jeffnickers 01:16, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Elaborate please.

Oppose- He shouldn't get adminship because of the fact that he can over hype some times as he did at User talk:TheManOfIron. if he wants adminship he needs to quit overhyping. Jeez he like my friend who plays Bball with my when its a close games. Wayyy to overhyped.  Rampantlion513  02:04, June 29, 2010 (UTC) Vote withdrawn  Rampantlion513  02:28, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Change to support-I have seen the good side of Darth and if he doesn't try to obbuse his power as an admin he would make a good admin.  Rampantlion513  02:36, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Definitely one of the few users who can make substantial claims to being qualified for adminship. However, attitude and manner is inconsistent and occasionally confrontational, as experienced in the past. While practical-minded and set to get things done, I'm concerned that his approach to his duties could be rash and unnecessarily personal, similar to how Imrlybord7 was. --Scottie theNerd 04:18, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I've noticed again that Darthkenobi0 has struck out all his votes on the RfAs for the same reason as last time: there is only "one" person who deserves the position. In my eyes, it's unthoughtful to oppose every candidate in favour of one instead of judging each nomination by their own worth. --Scottie theNerd 04:22, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually am not simply favoring that one user, it just happens that there is one I believe is capable of fully meeting the responsibilities of an admin, and that I don't feel those users are, my votes were, by no means, made in comparison against other candidates, simple coincidence and ease of copy and paste, if you would like me to put this onto every RFA I voted oppose on, I will happily do so, to explain.
 * Why not abstain from voting if you have nothing to say against that particular user? Your voting is practically protest voting,in that it provides no objective criticism or commentary but is opposed based on something they have no control over. --Scottie theNerd 04:37, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This nomination was done as a joke and Darth just recently withdrew a nomination. /justsaying Imrlybord7 13:41, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure most are aware, I replaced Ocho's joke nomination with my own formal request, as provided in the edit summary, a few friends said I should go for it for the feedback.

Support - I feel you would make a great admin. The reasons I stated when I nominated you previously have remained the same. While admittedly you can go overboard, it isn't a regular thing (though it would be better if it wasn't there at all, of course) and the good you do far outweighs the bad. You would do the wiki good. 21:03, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - A great user, per CoD4 and the nomination. Doc.  Richtofen  21:11, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Alex Martin Rider
Hi, I'm Alex Martin Rider. I nominate myself for the role of Adminship. I have been at this wiki for over two years ago now. My first account was "Batman Rider" then I made a new one. I go on here almost evey day. I edit pages, upload many valuable images used for pages, and take part in discussions I'm interested in. I don't get in fights with other users and cooperate with everyone I meet. I am an admin on two other wikis and understand the responsibilities of being one. I hope you seriously consider me for the role of an admin. Thank you for considering me! -- Alex Martin Rider 01:56, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Have never seen you around. --Scottie theNerd 04:14, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I've rarely seen you edit, and honestly you don't stand out as an exceptional editor.

Oppose - Have never seen you on Rampantlion513  04:44, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - You uploaded a lot of good quality pictures, but your editing is sporadic.

Strong Oppose - I'm with the above 3 on this one. I've seen you maybe once or twice. <font style="background:darkred">  404 Error   File Not Found  Please Try Again 12:10, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This is a joke, right? Imrlybord7 13:42, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Barely see you around. <font style="background:silver"> Poketape Talk  18:47, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I can honestly say this is the first time I have ever seen your name. Smuff 19:02, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Oh yeah, your mainspace count is way below par. Smuff 20:05, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I've actually never seen you before, so I can't support you. There are far better candidates. Maybe some day. 20:47, June 29, 2010 (UTC)