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 thousand 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.

Cpl. Dunn
I know this is probably too soon, but I have over 500 mainspace edits, and I feel I am well known by the community. I am always welcoming new users, participating in War Room topics and blog conversations. I am always reporting vandals to admins and waiting for them to ban them. As Doc. said in his RFA, waiting for an admin to ban a vandal can take a while. I want to become an admin so I can better protect pages and do more against vandals. Lt.  Dunn   03:06, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Pending - Both active and productive, but a bit "green" for my tastes. Imrlybord7 03:54, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Define "Green," Bord. Slowrider7 05:47, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet - Very inexperienced. Technically, this isn't supposed to affect my vote, but your work doesn't require admin privileges -- EightOhEight  17:22, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - "Green" means fresh and inexperienced -- straight out of boot camp. While I do see a fair amount of involvement with the wiki, being on the wiki for only 2 months is too short a time to grasp the community and be seen as a dependable user. Being an admin doesn't necessarily mean you can "better protect" pages, and while I applaud your enthusiasm, it's not right -- in my opinion -- to dole out admin positions to people who have only recently joined the wiki. --Scottie theNerd 06:07, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment One of you (Eight or Scottie) forgot to add a vote. This might not be the reason, but remember that Not Yet is a negative vote. Poketape Talk 23:50, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What happened to trying next month, Dunn? 11:10, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thank you all for your comments. I will take them into account, and next time I will not be so "green" and hopefully succesful. Lt.  Dunn   22:14, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support- I think that Cpl.Dunn is a great user. He has over 1K edits, he is always online, and he is well known and liked. Every ones concern seems to be that he is to new to the wiki, but i fail to see why that would make him a bad admin. If anything that would help him because he knows the mindset of all of the new user's, and no where does it say a user has to have been on the wiki for a set amount of time. T C   E   B 00:59, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Having the mindset of a new user is not an admirable trait for an admin to have. The issue is that, to quote Scottie, "being on the wiki for only 2 months is too short a time to grasp the community and be seen as a dependable user." I feel that Dunn will probably become an admin at some point, but I don't think it will be, or should be, all that soon. Imrlybord7 01:24, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I disagree, I feel like Dunn has a very firm grasp of the feel of the communtiy. GenCain.jpg C E B 01:27, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I feel that much of the newer community trusts me, but I think that the "veteran" editors don't know me well enough. Or maybe I'm just way too new. Lt.  Dunn   01:56, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not really about trust; it's more about motive. When a user applies to be an admin a few weeks after their first edits, it leaves a few questions. Why become so admin so soon? Another issue (not specifically for this RfA) is that we've had a significant intake of new sysops, and they're still settling down. I don't see the need to pick fresh faces for adminship considering how many active admins we now have. A lot of things will change down the track, and I'd venture to say that would be the appropriate time to have a more serious go, and perhaps you'll be even more determined to be admin. --Scottie theNerd 08:56, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards Oppose - Sorry, but par Scottie. You're a very good editor, but you've only been here 4 days more than me, (yet you have about 6 times the amount of edits as me, I'm worried if you're over active or if I'm underactive), and users like Imrlybord7 have been here since the beginning and are only syspos now. Also, there's alot of new admins apprearing, and they need to break the ropes aswell. Sorry! Smuff 19:00, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Bord joined in late 2008 and the Wiki was made in mid-2007. That's a bit too big of a time lapse for him to have been here since the beginning. 02:05, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Unnecessary and totally subjective. I have been here for a very long time, relatively speaking, and I was here before this wiki was particularly consequential. Imrlybord7 00:59, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Same, I've actually been using this wiki since late-2007, but not as a registered user... still, I'm with 'Bord that time does not necessarily matter. 11:01, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Smuff, it's me. I am over-active on this wiki. Lt.  Dunn   20:54, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - You are a great editor and user. The only thing standing in your way is, as Imrlybord said, being "Green". I can't support you due to that. It's only a matter of time. Doc.  Richtofen  16:43, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Phew, that's not bad no worries. And Chia, sorry, I havent been here snce the beginning, 17th Jan 2009 I think. Smuff 17:29, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Doc, you have the traits needed, and I don't think anyone can find anything negative, except that some things come with experience and time. Icepac K s 01:50, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I think Scottie hit the nail on the head. Cpl. Dunn is a very steady contributor, but two months is cutting it a little close in terms of experience. More time is needed to accurately determine if the user is ready for an upgrade in powers. 20:05, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

DevilWarrior112 (3)
This is the third time and I hope "Third Time Lucky". It happened to Maj.Gage and I believe it will happen to me. I have been contribuating to Doc.Richtofen's Crimson Eagle story, reached 2,000 edits and been a lot more active with the community. Some experienced users already have told me that it will happen but not at the moment like Imrlybord 7, Callofduty4, Poketape and Chiafriend12. They're all administrators and have had all the comments about them. I think it is my time now to go for it again. I have also been on talk pages and have recently tricked out my home page. I have been more active in blogs and talking with users about stuff. I have the confidence to become an admin.

Neutral - Need more information on how you would be of help to the wiki as a sysop and why you should be made in. Being involved in blog posting and writing stories or roleplays is not an indication of suitability for adminship. --Scottie theNerd 12:45, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, you've been on the wiki longer than I have, so I wouldn't call myself an experienced editor. --Scottie theNerd 12:46, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said in your previous RfA, blog activity doesn't relate to being an admin. I'd like to hear about more specific things that you have done that indicate your suitability. --Scottie theNerd 12:53, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Scottie theNerd. Doc.  Richtofen  13:58, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Scottie, I would consider you a very knowledgeable and intelligent editor. Doc.  Richtofen  13:58, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards support - You're a good editor, but judging by the RFAs you don't know any of the wikians on this too well, sorry (For example, you said PGB would make a good admin with a bit of time, that clearly didn't happen). Also Scottie, you're probobly one of the smartest people on this, a very experianced editor indeed. Smuff 14:09, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - When I first ran for Admin, Bord told me that blog/forum edits dont count towards my RFA. Thats completly true, and that is what is happening here. Getting PGB to leave the Wiki will not make you a knight in shining armor. That is just rude and mean to force somebody off the internet. I will admit that you have been trying very hard, but I dont see anything THAT distinguished in your little paragraph.

Neutral I think you'd make a good admin, and all the recent activity has shown that, but I still think you need time. Poketape Talk 18:38, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - You constantly act like you have authority when you do not and the quality of your mainspace edits is only average. To be honest, I would not expect to see you become an admin anytime soon. But as always, I have to say that I am not trying to imply that it will never happen or anything like that. Hard work, patience, and a diminished sense of self-importance will get you there. Imrlybord7 18:47, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Not yet - Per all. -- EightOhEight  01:23, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards Oppose - While DevilWarrior112 does have an impressive amount of main space edits, it seems of late much of his contributions to the wiki come from blog posts. Community involvement is not the same thing as posting on a blog. A little more time I think is necessary before the user might be suitable for adminship. 20:05, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Griever0311
I nominate Griever as an admin because he's got over 2000 edits, over 500 of them main-space. He has experience as a Marine in the current Middle-East conflict. He is very polite, knowledgeable, and intelligent. He is very well-known, and likable especially among the senior editors and Sysops. He has shown that he would use the power responsibly.  "Master Kenobi  20:22, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as nominator.  "Master Kenobi  20:22, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Could not agree more. He is incredibly responsible, polite and intelligent and I challenge anyone who says anything else. Always have a good time with him. Especially on my Aftermath blog.AdvancedRookie 20:24, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet Needs some more time. I don't think you've been here long enough. Poketape Talk 20:43, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Switch to neutral I see what everybody's saying. Poketape Talk 23:08, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Easily one of the most eligible users for sysopship. Imrlybord7 20:46, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He's mature, responsible, knows what he's doing, and respectful. Definitely a worthy user for adminship.--WouldYouKindly 20:50, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I can not say anything negative about you Griever, (if your reading this) you are the model Marine and the model Admin. I picture you as a bcat later on. Maybe spring of next year you should try. (If this gets approved.) Slowrider7 21:02, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per WYK. Doc.  Richtofen  21:12, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - One of the best editors out there. Keep it up, Griever - Semper Fi! 🇨🇩

Support - Per AR and WYK. Cpt. Z  21:31, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per WYK. Lt.  Dunn   21:35, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per WYK. ScotlandTheBest 21:46, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support- Griever should be an admin, he's more knowledgable and reasonable than any of us, and he's a good friend of mine on the wiki. Codfan

Support - Per John Boy. I mean, uh, WYK. 23:20, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Although Griever has not been on the Wiki for longer than approximately three months, he has shown that in a limited time he can achieve a great amount of good. His experience time might normally be a factor, however he has accumulated as many edits as several administrators, offering great advice, and first-hand knowledge in a friendly fashion.  "Master Kenobi Good editing. 00:15, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per... uhhh... per... per.... Cpt.Z. -- EightOhEight  01:28, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Hey guys, it's me here. I don't know if I have to formally accept, but if do, I'll go ahead and say I'd be more than happy to serve as an admin for your community. This Wiki's become a real hobby of mine, it's got a great userbase, and I'd like assist the team already in place in helping keep it that way. I'm usually on here several times a day, and I cruise around here a lot when I'm at work and time and operations permit, so I'm pretty set to keep tabs on vandals and quality control at night (3rd shift for the win) when other admins might not be active. Just throwing in my piece. So anyway, exercise your democratic franchise and rock the vote! --  Griever0311   00:29, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I have a lot of respect for anyone who serves in the armed forces. Griever has proven to be very capable of dealing with wiki issues and holds a vast amount of knowledge pertaining the both the game and real-life military. He has shown that he is not running for adminship for power or status and will be a true asset to the admin team. --Scottie theNerd 01:19, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per All, Griever has alot of respect, a high knowledge of firearms, and is an extremely down-to-earth, repected editor that everyone would be happy to see on the team, he would be a proper asset to the team everyone would love. Smuff 17:42, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - Griever is very mature, knowledgeable and useful. I think he could make a great admin. The only thing I'm worried about, and the reason for the "Weak" in my vote, is that you really haven't been here that long. However, I don't think that should be much of a problem. 18:05, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support Even though he hasn't been here for absolute ages, that is totally dependant upon the person. some people need 2 years to learn the ropes, but Griever is an incredibly responsible person and wouldn't abuse his powers. I don't want to get stuck on these dumb rules when making someone and admin who I know would solely be an asset to the wikia. TNT LotLP 20:53, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Extreemly strong Support Per all above. I have one reason to vote no and that is '''Greiver did we not just have a discussion where you told me not to nominate you!!!!! I wanted to nominate you''', oh well my hopes are dead. But its 16, 1 and 0 i think its admin time --T C   E   B 20:56, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - He's been here three months and in that time done similar work to some of the Sysops (particularly Darkman4). His first-hand knowledge has contributed a great amount to the wiki (more than I could ever hope to at this point) and his dispassionate attitude has made him into what I think is one of the wiki's most valuable assets. (Yay for Marine training x). I know there's little reason to try to sway anyone, but it's fun to praise the guy because he's so kind, I just may have to add him to the list of my personal heroes.  "Master Kenobi Good editing. 00:34, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per EightOhEight, and Master Kenobi, I think you meant that to be a support? :P. Anyway, on topic, what's left to say? He's a great editor, and knowledgeable, but not condescending. Icepac K s 01:50, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to full on support 20:15, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose'- Even though I may be a blast from the past on this, he's smarted off a lot to me, and has admitted to leaving commets of very poor taste. Also, he seems to have backed-up this person who calls the kettle black, but I am bound to change. Also his knowledge on Call of Duty as a whole is lacking as he's admitted to only playing two or three, and most of edits are on gun mechanics, not Call of Duty. If this was a Gun wiki, I'd nominate him in a heartbeat.
 * Playing many games from the COD series is not a requirement to be an admin. In addition, I think Griever makes many edits that rephrase passages into more professionally-worded sections, showing that he is capable of using correct and accurately terminology and description and not just filling us in on technical information. And, honestly, almost everyone has smarted off to you. --Scottie theNerd 06:43, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If it were. Grrr..... :) 🇨🇩

Comment - Well to be honest PGB, I haven't seen you make any terribly significant edits that I see as notable. Griever is known for reasons that are actually not just using phrases, poorly rewording whole sections of artcles and making small edits involving templates admins don't even bother touching (You used me as an example in your RFA, I l think I might as well return the favour). I may seem like I'm bitching here, but you're just back from your SECOND ban, don't immediatly come back looking like a jackass going against everyone else's opinion again. Griever is more than fine, he has answered many queries about the army and has made countless good edits that I think could easily overshadow those "commets of very poor taste." Smuff 22:39, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - one of the bcats should probably close this, he's got overwhelming support, besides PGB. Who, btw, really should stfu because although I joined after the several incidences of his trolling, he was the first I heard about, so although I believe he's changing, Griever has been far more valuable to the wiki.  "Master Kenobi Good editing. 02:24, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It's cool, man. Everybody gets to voice their opinion and vote; they'll make the decision and close it in due time. --   Griever0311   02:29, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - General procedure is to leave an RfA open for at least two weeks, and this has only been going on for five days. While Griever's overwhelming support may warrant an early closing, it's still a little too early. 02:41, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Wholeheartedly agree. Griever has earned my respect from his mature conduct and impressive contributions. Through his edits to the wiki, he has shown that he is ready and responsible to receive administrative powers. 20:05, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - After viewing his maturity in a blog post concerning PGB, and added with his amazing edit count, grammatical skills and intelligence, it's a whopping and resounding "YES" from everyone. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez  Reportin' for duty. 20:59, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Icepacks
I hereby nominate Icepacks for the position of sysop. If I didn't know any better I would think he was an admin already. He is extremely intelligent, professional, kind, polite, helpful, and active. That pretty much sums it up. Imrlybord7 20:09, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Going to be away for about a week. If you pass a verdict, feel free to close it if it's negative. If not, please keep this running. Cheers, Icepac K s 23:26, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Imrlybord7 20:09, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Impeccable record. Excellent editor all round. 20:15, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per the two above support's.  Doc.   Richtofen  20:24, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Because... because... he's... cool? (Per Imrlybord7) - EightOhEight  22:40, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He's a pretty smart hombre/ballerhoss Jeffnickers 22:43, March 23, 2010 (UTC) User lacks required mainspace edits. Imrlybord7 23:56, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

oh haha, sorry, didn't read the mainspace part, my bad.Jeffnickers 21:27, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I completely agree with Callofduty4. 00:56, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. 00:25, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - One of the most active users currently - racks up edits all day long, patrols for vandals, and is a good user. 🇨🇩

Support - Per all, and I'm kind of confused as to why this is his RfA, like Imrlybord7 I would have figured he was a sysop. Surely a user to aspire to, along the levels (in my opinion) of the aforementioned admin, and Griever0311. "Master Kenobi Good editing. 02:21, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Icepacks has shown in his edits that he has proper knowledge of how wikis work. I am certain that giving him an upgrade in user powers will allow him to contribute even greater to the wiki all around 20:05, March 27, 2010 (UTC)