Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship/MLGisNot4Me (4)

Hi all. I'm here once again to nominate myself. It'd be nice if you read this with care.

A little bit about my contributions: by now I have 7265 edits, I'm active pretty much every day (although I was semi-active by the release of MW3 and a couple weeks onward, schoolwork was on me). I do anti-vandalism by reverting, warning and reporting. I also do much maintenance (mainly via Special:SpecialPages) and keep blogs clean of bad comments. I participate in discussions to wiki changes, such as in War Room.

I have a good knowledge of rules and policies, and usually tell someone if they are breaking a policy. I also have a clean log of being blocked (or banned in chat) or policy breaches, only excluding one breach of the IRL rule (of which I didn't know then).

What comes to the opposing reasons on the previous RfA: Here's some examples of tasks left at COD:AR:, , , ,.
 * 1) No need - When a user is made an administrator, he/she doesn't need to show a huge need for the tools. As long as the user shows some use for them, good. If a need for a sysop that would need them more was mandatory, no one prevents us from making more sysops. Also, I would find a good use for them, since I find a bigger task I have to ask an admin to handle 5 times a week on average.
 * 1) Behavior and maturity - I'm guessing everyone knows about the fight about COD:AR with Callofduty4, and I can say I'm sorry of my idiotic behavior then. However, I have improved my behavior significantly, and learned of my mistakes. If you're getting pissed, you should either just ignore and keep cool or leave, instead of raeging. Besides, everyone makes mistakes sometimes. But if we take a look elsewhere, I don't show any significantly bad or offensive behavior. While I may seem sometimes angry, it just may look like I'm angry, and even if I really was pissed off (for example from raging at Type 95) and were here, I'd never let the rage be a factor in any of my actions or let it show.
 * 2) Too many new admins at that moment - Well, as of now Raven's wing was made an admin about 5-6 weeks ago, and Shotrocket6 about a week ago (also taking count by the time this nomination is over it's two weeks more). However, I believe Raven has become familiar with adminship, and Shotrocket is not just learning it, so it wouldn't be a complete mess if I were to enter. Also, I've had experience as an admin on another wiki for a few months, so I do know how to use the tools, and while different wiki is different and there are some differences, I'm sure there wouldn't be many situations where I wouldn't know what to do due to inexperience with the tools, but I'm all-in in learning. And if it was urgent and I couldn't do it, it's quite unprobable that there wouldn't be any other admins/users (depending on the task) that could do it.

Should this RfA be successful, would I become inactive? A pain in the ass? Abuse my tools? No, no and no. I would...
 * ...be just as active and contributive as usual
 * ...be mature and polite in my actions, especially to new contributors (noncontributing users as well)
 * ...do anti-vandalism by monitoring all edits via S:RC and use the banhammer if there's a vandal on loose
 * ...never misuse the tools or use them to my own, or any other individual's advantage
 * ...keep up maintenance over all areas of wiki (which can be done better with sysop tools)
 * ...listen to other people and check around for task requests
 * ...moderate chat and IRC if need be.

Even though this is already my fourth RfA (oh well, first and third ones were quite unnecessary), I'm not obsessed with adminship if it looks like it. I like being a part of this wiki and I'm putting as much effort as I can to make it better. This wiki with its community means much to me; it has become a part of my life, and I'm planning it to keep it that way.

Thanks for reading, and remember to keep it clean. 18:23, November 25, 2011 (UTC)