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.

Callofduty4
I've been thinking for a while, "should I run for Bureaucrat?" At first, I said "No, that's stupid" but now I think I will. So yes, I am running for bureaucrat. I'd like to see what the community thinks of me now, having been made admin some months ago. As Creepydude hasn't edited here for a while, we're down to one 'crat, Chiafriend12. I do think Joeyaa and Darkman4 are better candidates, but Darkman hasn't edited here in a while and Joeyaa doesn't seem interested (at least to me, maybe you are interested). As I said before I became an administrator, I promise to bee cool and professional with the tools I might be granted and will not use them for my personal gain. So please have your say, as I've said I'm interested in what people have to say. Thank you. 23:03, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think another active Bureaucrat would be nice, especially one who can handle situations as well as Callofduty4. I'm not sure if anyone noticed what he did with that "My dick is big" guy, but it was handled carefully without any verbal attacks. --  T    C    E   06:30, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Well it's rather soon after you actually got admin. Or is it? Has it really been that long? God, where the hell did my life go? Anyway, as Creepy has been inactive as of late it would be nice to have another active 'crat. And as Joey or Darkman aren't up for nomination/request at this time (although that may change) I'll give my support to you, Cod4. In my experience you have always handled your administrative positions responsibly and maturely. 00:35, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Dammit, I'm not even a Sysop yet. Oh well. Imrlybord7 05:06, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Yeah sure...why not? Creepy's been inactive for some time for what I can see, and you'd make a good 'crat...Demon Magnetism talk 20:14, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Not really enough active bureaucrat's and the way he handles vandals are amazing. Doc.Richtofen 20:32, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support -What person wouldn't want him in? Good user, tries to be peaceful, only goes to war with users who are unjustly abusing wikia, so fuck yeah, you need it. Peter Griffen Boy 21:03, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support -Do I really need to say? I do? Oh, ok, this is like weddings where the bride's best friend comes up and tells embarrasing stories, right? :P In any case, yeah, def. 'crat material. Good luck. Cpl. Wilding 21:15, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support -Sure thing! Most of the Mods aren't active enough, we need a new Moderator! Braden 0.0 16:23, january 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * User doesn't exist.--Poketape 22:57, January 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * He has 104 edits. He just hasn't made a userpage? -- 2nd_Lieutenant.png8oh8sig.png  T   C    E   02:46, January 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right. My mistake.--Poketape 21:32, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support Per everybody else.--Poketape 22:57, January 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Switch to Neutral - I've been made a little uneasy by the situations talked about below.--Poketape 20:59, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple things that concern me about your run for bureaucrat.

One, you didn't say once why you should be a bureaucrat. I may be the only currently active one, but that reason applies to everyone and doesn't differentiate you from the herd in the least.

Two, while this is a far lesser concern, a bureaucrat of an actual Wikia wiki community, such as of that we have here, should be knowledgeable in online etiquette, wikitext, and policies not only from our wiki, but some of the bigger ones from Wikipedia and ones that apply to all of Wikia. For example, if I say to someone "Do it yourself", am I being a lazy grump, or am I actually making a valid point?

Three, after being knowledgeable in important sectors, is going through with implementation and practice, which I find the most concerning with making you a bureaucrat. Just going through some of the things you've done from New Year's until now, I've come across all this: One infraction I would ignore, but eight in less than a week is quite concerning indeed.
 * 1) Ignoring practice and making somewhat substantial changes to the sidebar without doing anything in the War Room - Adding the community highscores, as it is a wiki project, I see nothing wrong with (though, perhaps it's not noteworthy enough for the sidebar), but the other four things I find bad choices to put up on the sidebar. They are all in the userspace (note that, as of now, the ATEFI link redirect to the userspace), and userspace links from such a place as the sidebar just isn't right.
 * 2) UTP and DFTT violations
 * 3) DFTT violation - Even if there is a friendly smiley face at the end, the content of the rest of it could easily scare someone off or start a fight.
 * 4) Not that it breaks any policies, but it could hurt some peoples' feelings, start a fight, etc., but overall it's just not that nice of a thing to say.
 * 5) Pretty much the same thing as above - Calling M1887 users "whores".
 * 6) Partial DFTT violation
 * 7) DFTT and DBAD somewhat - It's the sandbox. He made a small vandalous edit to the sandbox. That's completely different from doing it to an actual article.
 * 8) Overuse of administrative powers - It's a Wikia-wide policy that wikis should not fully protect pages with the exception of IAR's principle in the case of a vandal attack. AGF goes along with this. Even the relatively new users should be able to edit policy pages if it helps the page.
 * 9) Ignoring practice again - This is something you'd take up with the War Room. There actually are downsides to this I doubt anyone considered.

Four, I'm not convinced that you understand the urgency of needing to get a new bureaucrat when there is only one active. Are you running simply because I'm the last man standing, or because you think that you are up to the job? To be frank, an unregistered user could nominate themselves, say that Creepy's inactive and promise to use the powers only for good and they would have two thirds of your nomination paragraph. For me, at least, having a good presentation contributes a lot to whether or not I support someone getting administrative powers. 04:41, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I take your vote as an oppose, Chia. All of those things were done in good faith. It's not like I spend time protecting policies, adding to the sidebar etcetera to detriment the wiki. I spent time doing those things to help the wiki. I always run the same thing through my head when I block/delete/protect/edit anything ;

"Is this going to help? Or am I being too stupid?"

If the answer is yes to the first question, then I go ahead. If the answer is yes to the second question then I don't do it. When I changed the colour of the administrator's, bureaucrat's etcetera names, those questions did run through my head. It was after I took the COD:AEAE policy into account that I realized that maybe it wasn't a great idea and I changed it back to normal. I only aim to help. I joined this wiki thinking I could help the wiki by creating the Prypiat article. That urge to help hasn't changed since.

So the answer to your question "Am I up to the job"; the answer is yes. 14:17, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * AEAE actually wasn't the downside I was talking about. 11:33, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Chia, I can understand your concern, but the number of times that Cod4 has been civil in hostile "territory" far outweighs the number of times he has been impolite in any way. He is a great asset to the wiki and nobody is perfect. I know that my track record for personal attacks and such may preclude me from an administrative position, but I think that anybody who has seen my edits and knows about the major changes I have brought to the wiki would support me in an RfA because giving me more power is pretty much a guarantee that the wiki will become a better source of information (same applies to Cod4), which is the whole purpose of the site's existence. It seems like a lot of people lose sight of that priority. Imrlybord7 14:22, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks Imrlybord. To be honest the same thing applies to you, all the work you put towards making us the most comprehensive source for Modern Warfare 2 (among other things) far outweighs your "bad points". It's funny (in a cruel way) how someone can put in so much work and not even be thanked properly. The idea of putting up a sitenotice thanking everyone (especially Imrlybord) didn't even arise in my head. Believe me if Imrlybord wasn't here the MW2 talk page wouldn't have been so organized, the MW2 article would not have near as much information than it does now, and the MW2 pages wouldn't simply be as good. I'm probably one of the few who understand that a great article can go up in flames due to a few bad edits. Even if they were in good faith (which most of them seem to be), it can still ruin the article. So once again, thanks Imrlybord. 14:43, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- Callofduty4, when I've seen you ban people you've been polite and easy to get along with, hell I think I met you because I made a stupid edit. If someone has proven themselves to be a fucking jackass and yes I use those terms seriously, then you lose all politeness and hit them where it hurts, without breaking the rules to the extreme. Like I always say "Murder isn't a crime. Murder and getting caught however is." Isn't there also an ignore all rules policy, where you can break certain rules within a certain degree? Peter Griffen Boy 02:50, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks Peter Griffen Boy, yes there is a policy called Call of Duty Wiki:Ignore all rules. However, you can't use that to gain an advantage in an argument. No one likes a vandal, I try to be reasonable but I do realize that once or twice I've gone over the top with the warnings (i.e. I've spammed their talk page with warnings). I do take that policy into account a lot when I block/warn people. 09:41, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - "Murder isn't a crime. Murder and getting caught however is." Since you have been nice to me I try not to be too insulting toward you PGB, but there is just no way I can let the stupidity of that statement go. It was completely irrelevant to anything being discussed and it's just an idiotic statement to begin with, especially given that you chose to use murder instead of some lesser crime. Sorry, but it warranted a callout. Imrlybord7 20:30, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Personally, in my opinion, the whole thing of more personalised anti-vandalism messages sort of gives a sort of less 'teacher embarassing you in front of the class' feeling, kinda less patronising. And the whole thing of 'M40A3 sucks balls' is at least welcoming in the sense of being like you're on the same level, cause it's really offputting to any user, new or old if the admins prance about like king, which on Wikipedia......After all, it's a gaming wiki, I'd kinda like the feeling of knowing that everyone here actually plays the game, and knows all the up's and down's. Well, that's my opinion, I know it sounds kind of like I'm telling everyone to abandon etiquette and run wild, but I just like the thought of everything being personal, and people not being patronised by repetitive templates, and moralising comments from disgruntled admins. I just don't want this place to fall victim to the Wikipedia hierachy. Demon Magnetism talk 00:22, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - You may not know me that much, but I'd just like to throw my two cents into the ring - I don't think Callofduty4 should be an admin on the sole purpose that the way he acts and how he treats both inexperienced and normal users alike on this wiki. He acts very rude and vulgar, something I've noticed in a lot of occasions - honestly, can you refrain from stooping as low as to claim the M40 "sucks balls", IW can go jack off, and honestly completely and utterly insulting a new user instead of properly explaining a situation. I know he's wrong, but try to explain NICELY, man, and if he starts to swear, don't keep adding to it... sure, you've done some good stuff, but you can't just act like a jerk and expect it to slide perfectly... you really need to clean up your attitude, because that's not how an administrator should act. there you go, there are my reasons. Like them or not, hate me or not, but the reasons stand - your actions hurt and you don't seem like you could properly represent a mature and understanding administrator on the Call of Duty wikia. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez Reportin' for duty. 02:36, January 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Cod4 has been a bit more vulgar lately, but any infractions he has committed are minor and he is a HUGE asset to the wiki. I am honestly offended that you would be so insolent as to say "sure, you've done some good stuff" as if that even covers a small fraction of what he has done. Look, I respect your opinion and your reason for not supporting him, but as a fellow major contributor, I hate seeing people belittle someone else's high quality work. If you didn't mean to come off that way then I apologize, but at least that part of your reasoning really rubbed me the wrong way. Imrlybord7 03:32, January 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Listen, I know he's a great editor. But if he doesn't have a good attitude, I don't think he's a good representative for the wikia and for an admin. I don't see those infractions as minor, though, because they really are immature, rude and uncalled for. He can continue to be a great asset to the wiki without being an admin, because as of right now, I don't think he deserves adminship based on those actions listed by me and by Shia. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez  Reportin' for duty. 13:03, January 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am already an administrator. I am trying to become a bureaucrat. Anyway. thanks for the vote. And I stand by Imrlybord's decision that all of those were minor, because they were. I don't scold people for the hell of it, I scold them to teach them a lesson. I totally appreciate your vote and have nothing against it, partly because it was explaining some valid points but mostly because it was very well and intelligently written. 14:06, January 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment- Sometimes a jackass, but usually COD4 is pretty nice. Peter Griffen Boy 03:15, January 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment -I looked at those three situations that you used as examples and here's what I thought. All three situations were understandable. Vandals are annoying and don't deserve respect, but insulting a gun is going out there. Insulting IW is unnecessary, but his reasons were pretty clear. As for the last situation, it gets very annoying when people act like they know what's going on, especially when they type badly. I think these situations deserve attention, but they still are very understandable.--Poketape 20:59, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Vandals may be annoying and worthy of being blocked, but they don't deserve flame. Warn or block them and move on. 01:47, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Peter Griffen Boy
I myself do not plan on this working, but I like to see some comments on what I need to improve on, and how I should go about to doing this. I do plan on getting more mainspace edits and getting my name on the Recent Edits and going for adminship again later. So please, comment on what I'm doing well and what I need to improve on.

Comment/Support This user is a little snarky & rude, but he is now probably one of my best friends on the Wiki. I will tell it how it is PGB, you might want to relax on the insults, but you dont mean to I bet. Your just as bad as some people on here, and thats a good thing. Your a good user, and I could see you as a moderator drastically changing how mutch vandalism happens, and how fast it is reacted to. Slowrider7 23:09, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - PGB, I know you might hate me or whatever, but I don't hate you. However, I think you are extremely immature, impolite, and downright annoying. You have almost no mainspace edits, either, which is really the biggest issue. A huge percentage of your edits are comments on blogs and talk pages. You haven't done nearly enough for the wiki to deserve an admin position, and from a user interaction standpoint you are even less qualified than I am. Sorry. Imrlybord7 00:12, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While I don't hate you, I dislike the way you treat other users, and most of your jokes. You have more mainspace edits than me, but the quality of them are very poor, most of the time. But since this is probably more for feedback, I'd say you should treat other users with more respect and refrain from joking around as much. --  T    C    E   02:52, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Imrlybord basically said it all.... at times you can be funny, but you are very rude and immature. Plus, we have a good amount of admins already. 00:41, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- I did this to see what I need to improve on. I've done some good work on vandalisim and getting vandals to stop, until an admin can deal with the situation, see this load of bull. Peter Griffen Boy 00:50, January 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - That kid is a total ass, and I have seen you do a fair amount of anti-vandal work, but it isn't really enough. Also, posting your contributions in the middle of RfA discussion is kind of sloppy and sort of undermines the process. It is better to list your major contributions in your RfA opening. Otherwise, it can be very easy to just end up compulsively posting good things about yourself every few comments in the RfA discussion. Keep in mind that you are free to amend the opening at any time. Imrlybord7 01:00, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Looking at your your editcount, I can see that while it says you have over 2,000 edits, over 550 of the "edits" are actually blog posts, and the percent of mainspace edits as compared to your total actual edits could use improvement. Comparing your 36 project namespace edits to your blog postcount—which is over fifteen times as much—shows that you don't participate in community discussions all that much. You don't need administrative powers to stop vandalism, so just keep it up for now. 01:47, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per the above. Sorry man, just not enough mainspace edits and outright insults and flames don't help your cause. Cpl. Wilding 02:11, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Opposite - Per everyone else, sorry, but the content you post CAN and has caused some nasty flame wars, sorry, but I don't think your Admin material. Braden 0.0 (Yes, I do have a user page, I just don't know how to link it) 21:25, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. PGB is a good editor, but has caused some nasty flame wars with his "jokes", and has also recently come very close to harassment with another user when said user had different political views than him. Until he gains a little maturity, he can't be trusted with admin powers, sorry.--WouldYouKindly 02:58, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Important Comment- Anyone who brings up the Warpanda situation most not know how to read english. Never did I call him a basturd or any of those terms. He told me to fuck off, on my own bog and I was merely defending myself. If you cannot see that WarPanda and I have gotten over it and are now somewhat friends, then you honestly can't read English. I have never attacked a user to make them fell bad or to make them quit editing. If someone dislkes my jokes and can't handle that, why should I be blamed when they want to argue. It's like paying to see Bill Cosby, when you hate his style of comedy, and then attacking him to get your money back. Also, this was never an attempt to get an admin positin, I was just trying to see what I needed to improve on. Peter Griffen Boy 03:54, January 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - First of all, it was a slightly serious offense that should not be taken lightly. Here's the first comment:


 * "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all, or I'll M16 your face off, shove an M4 up your arse, plant a thorwing knife in your penis, and aim a Intervention at your heart, pull all triggers at once, and you'll be done for.


 * You should've left that last part off. It'd have made you look mature, and the bigger person. The last part just made you look like an ass and immature. If that wasn't supposed to make them feel "bad", or at least offended, that what was it? You CAN be blamed for your jokes, because if your jokes offend someone else's beliefs or principles, then that's your fault. Second, if you weren't looking for an admin position, you should've asked some people personally. -- 2nd_Lieutenant.png8oh8sig.png  T   C    E   04:00, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment (@ PGB) - Not that it's even my place to bring this up here, or that I even care whether it's my place or not, but I must say that I do not appreciate being talked about behind my back, especially when you should be fully aware of the fact that I can see everything you say about me. You have actually made things up about me while doing so, which makes it worse. This is what I mean when I call you immature. And before you say that I have done the same to you, all I have done is brought your more "interesting" comments to the attention of others, and I have certainly never made anything up about you. Also, you clearly scared Warpanda into "reconciling" with you, whether you meant to or not. As much as you insist that the issue was "resolved," I simply cannot see eye to eye on that. You harassed a new user for his political views and then scared him into a "resolution." Also, your sense of humor is absolutely tasteless. Honestly, I think you would have a very good shot at admin in a few months if you just serious the fuck up. Imrlybord7 04:15, January 21, 2010 (UTC)