Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Redskin-26 (2)

Hello all, I'd like to nominate Redskin for adminship. In his seven months here on the wiki, he has accomplished a great deal.


 * 1) His edit count shows he is dedicated to the betterment of the wiki as a whole. He is active in all namespaces and is regularly found licencing images, categorising pages correctly and generally helping out in the mainspace.
 * 2) As a chat moderator, he has proven to be a reliable and trustworthy member of the community. On numerous occasions he has caught sockpuppets in Chat, but has had to ask an administrator to take further action; with sysop tools he could have done it quicker and more efficiently. Similarly, he has been entrusted with rollback and custodian rights, the effectiveness of which he could enhance with the extra sysop tools (deleting unneeded images and protecting pages, respectively).
 * 3) Redskin is also active in other aspects of the community, particularly in the War Room. Recently, he showed great composure and kept a level head where others didn't in a certain controversial topic.
 * 4) With our current administrative team at only twelve active users, and an ever increasing community size with the release of new content every month, it seems logical to have another user to reinforce the current ones. In addition, I will be inactive for quite some time, meaning Redskin (with a similar level of activity to me) could fill the void I would leave.

In addition to all of these points, Redskin also has a clean block record and a few minor policy infractions early in his time here (ironically his first was from me for not licensing images). I hope that you see him as the same candidate that I do and vote appropriately. 00:10, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

I accept this well written nomination, and I would also like to tell Elmo that his time here has been well appropriated and that I hope he enjoys his inactivity and personal time away from the wiki. 00:38, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As nominator.  00:10, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) He's a great user, is largely active, and he's very nice to the community. If anyone should be made an admin, it should be him. Commander Shepard: "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken! 00:18, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) A great aid to the wiki, he's very trusted and is for the betterment of the wiki. 00:21, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) A fine editor and friend on this Wiki. Charcoal121 00:26, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Per the previous nubs. 00:31, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) He's a hardworking user and I think that if any one should be an admin, he should.
 * 7) Per nominator.  03:31, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Per nom.  03:41, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) I agree with Elmo and everybody else, and Red has helped me with certain things. 03:46, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Per all. 15:43, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) I feel that those chastising Redskin for making those mistakes fail to realise that he has learnt from those experiences and improved considerably as a result. It shows in his attitude for one. For this reason and those that Eltomo wrote, I consider him trustworthy enough for administration tool access and am strongly supporting his request.  16:08, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Per all, especially Eltomo and Panzer.  16:20, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Redskin is an excellent Wiki contributor, hard worker, and an all around good guy.  18:24, March 4, 2012
 * 14) Yes, I feel that now is the time for Red to be granted admin tools. He really deserves it. 22:09, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Adminship is not an award :|. One does not deserve adminship. 01:01, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral
Pending 16:30, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Pending 18:30, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Pending I need to think it over. 18:32, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) PotatOS Wanna Test?My Own Test Chambers 00:21, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, your reasoning is the previous RfA? Could you actually provide an actual reason as to why he shouldn't get the tools? Commander Shepard: "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!" 00:24, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * My reasoning in the previous RfA, yes. If you had checked it out before asking, I stated that I don't believe Redskin will fully be able to handle his tools. PotatOS Wanna Test?My Own Test Chambers 00:27, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read the previous RfA. I voted on it, in fact. But it's not relevant. Say here why he shouldn't be an admin, not there. Commander Shepard: "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!" 00:28, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * His reasoning is saying how most of the Opposes of RfA 1 were "Not Yet"s,and how there hasn't been a sufficient time or improvement between RfAs. 00:33, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I find the prospect of using reasoning in a past RfA almost laughable. You're implying Redskin hasn't improved at all or become more experienced, or the state of the wiki is the same as however many weeks ago Redskin's past RfA was. That is simply not the case. 02:32, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * The wiki has changed, I completely agree with that. While Redskin has continued being a superb editor, I still don't see much change from him in the past 5 weeks, thus my opinion is unchanged. PotatOS Wanna Test?My Own Test Chambers 03:06, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  00:33, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Paragon's ban is what happens when you trust Google Translate (and yes I did jump to a conclusion on that occasion) 00:36, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I forget who, but on another occasion, you mistook someone saying something like a quote not directed at you as a personal insult and said something along the lines of "you have 2 seconds to explain why i shouldn't ban you ass right now" But, this was all out of memory, but it was along those lines. 00:41, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know what you where talking about, I then was just a bit overwhelmed and did not take care in my choice of words. 00:43, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * But if you can barely be trusted with smaller tools, how can you be trusted with larger ones? 00:47, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * While I see where you're coming from, "barely" is a bit of an overstatement. 00:50, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Philly, I believe that you are just focusing to hard on these small occasions, both of these occasions were sorted out correctly and where mere mishaps. Not to mention these occurred quite a long while ago. You can think of them what you like but that is my take on it, and it's not as if current administrators haven't had some mishaps, miscommunications or mistakes of there own, but of course the topic is not other administrators, and I do take full responsibility for those mistakes and have tried to better myself off of them. 00:52, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * He is fairly trusted with his tools and puts them to great use, but as the average human bieng we mess up so its fairly understandable to why Redskin reacted the way he did on the 2 chat events.00:55, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I feel that's Red banning me was my just desserts. What I said was offensive and broke UTP, and had he not banned me, I wouldn't have realised the error of my ways, and I'd probably have gotten a permaban from Chat by now. He has also warmed up to being a good friend and an even better contributor to this wiki. I hope my account clears everything up. 14:13, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * No user deserves adminship. That's not how it works. It is not a matter of deserving it - it is a matter of being trusted enough to be given tools. They don't go hand in hand. 02:34, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I believe there are other users that could use these tools better. 00:40, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but few are as consistently active as Redskin. 00:41, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Who are they? And how do they make Redskin any less of a candidate? If people don't want to nominate these users who could apparently use these tools "better", then that's their own problem. Not this RfAs, so do not give a baseless oppose vote here trying to solve the problem of the "better" candidates not being nominated. 02:34, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well then, besides me not seeing a need for a new admin, I understand various users believe that he improperly does his job, as well as sometimes not being level headed. I also understand that when he was given other powers, he was unable to use them properly and had made many mistakes. 01:09, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Conqueror of all Zombies 00:56, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Daniel Strike III   The think tank    01:01, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3)  01:09, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) While I know Redskin has the capacity to use these tools, I feel he needs a little more time, so he can smooth out any problems he has. The last time we gave a user adminship too early, he get desysopped within a few months because the community decided he was going mad with power. Redskin just needs some more time, that's all. 06:46, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I would go instantly mad with power? That sounds like a bit of an extreme scenario if you ask me. 15:43, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * What problems, may I ask? He's been on the wiki more than enough time, if you ask me. Commander Shepard: "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!" 21:06, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer your question Redskin, the last person we gave adminship to within 7 months of them joining the wiki was Sp3c. When he was granted admin, he was in about the same position you are in now. Good editor, never had any problems. A few months into his adminship however, he stopped editing on-wiki and mainly went to IRC, where reportedly he was always in a bad mood. He gave out ridiculously excessive punishments to users who had done very little wrong. His first Desysop forum resulted in people voting no, saying this should be a warning to him. However, the activities continued, to the point where he was desysopped two months later. I'm not saying that you could end up the same way, I am just being cautious about it. 21:50, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  08:10, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I fear Redskin will be unable to perform his job properly, and he needs more time to learn the rules fully. Per all. 10:51, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * But he's a chat moderator, so he knows the rules perfectly fine. 15:46, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Cod4, Redskin is one of the people on this wiki that know the rules almost perfectly. 15:56, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) per all  11:56, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)  14:23, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe? 15:57, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Not yet Per all, maybe later.
 * Maybe? 15:57, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Comments/Questions
Shotrocket6 18:27, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Commander Shepard: "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!" 21:11, March 4, 2012 (UTC)