Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Archive 3

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance.

Bovell

Bovell^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I Peter nominate Bovell, because he is a good editor, never picks on fights, and is a great templete maker and editor. Look at his sandbox and you'll see waht I mean.

I accept my nomination. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 22:04, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support	10
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Suprisingly I Support- As the nominator smart one. Peter Griffen Boy 21:33, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Peter, you came back? -- T C E 21:42, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - User has made good contributions and has done some good anti vandal work. I honestly have no problem with Imrlybord and Bovell being made admins. They both deserve it and could be a great help.     21:54, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Pretty much a flawless user. Imrlybord7 02:55, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I say yes. Good editor, good anti-vandal work and generally a good user. Cpl. Wilding 02:56, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I see no issue with Bovell assuming admin responsibilities. Excellent record, professional conduct and good familiarity with how the wiki works. --Scottie theNerd 03:40, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support He's a very steady user, makes a lot of edits each month, especially in January. Basically what everybody else said. E.TALE ^Barracks Headquarters13:21, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Frankly I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner. WouldYouKindly 14:15, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Excellent user. Should have gotten it before I did, quite frankly SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 22:34, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Can't see a reason not to make him a mod, and honestly, that's a pretty rare thing to see. TNT LotLP 08:44, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Flawless user. Doc.Richtofen 19:19, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think the vote is unanimous. I'll see if we can get him to be an admin now. (shouts) CHIAAAAAAA!!!!     17:58, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

RfA successful; Bovell will be given administrator powers shortly. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 03:56, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Maj.Gage

Maj.Gage^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Now I think this is the third time perhaps. I have of 2,200 edits and a good reputation among the wiki. I've been around since June 2009 (I don't know if that is too early or not). I believe I am up to the challenge of being admin. File:Emblem-loadedfinger.jpg Maj.Gage ^Talk . 10:48, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support	8
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support - Outstanding contribution record; keen attitude and friendly. Has been great to work with and I have confidence in his ability to work on an admin level. --Scottie theNerd 12:04, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Amazing record, tons of good edits, hasn't been in any fights that I've seen.... -- T C E 17:26, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all above. Doc.Richtofen 19:28, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I've decided that I have no problem with there being lots of admins as long as they are all worthy, and Gage is definitely among the worthy. Imrlybord7 00:50, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Same thing I said about Poketape. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 21:58, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Your an excellent user, you would be a great admin. E.TALE ^Barracks Headquarters01:55, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You're a great contributor, a mature user, and one of the most well-known people here.--WouldYouKindly 05:53, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Maj. Gage is an awesome editor, and I would like to see at least 3-4 new admins. Also, he's an epic CoD player ;)     17:58, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

RfA successful; Gage will be given administrator powers shortly. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 03:56, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Poketape (2)

Poketape^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I feel that now is the time to try again. I want to become an admin so I'll be able to fight against vandals. I see vandalism all the time and it gets annoying having to report it to people. By becoming an admin, I'll be able to support the wiki better and fight vandalism.Poketape 04:26, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support	8
Neutral	1
Oppose	2

Support - You have all the qualities that an admin needs, generally good at everything at this wiki and I think you deserve it. Doc.Richtofen 19:50, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While it hurts me to give this vote I already have my vote on who will be the next admin. You certainly have the credentials but I think there are several more deserving users.     13:32, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Your a great editior and a fantastic guy. You have never gotten in to any fights and you are overall, well known by the community. However, like callofduty4 said, there are more deserving users out there. Keep up the excellent effort and you will eventually get it. E.TALE ^Barracks Headquarters18:34, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Whether or not there's more deserving users is debatable, but I am the one being voted on and I don't think you should oppose me just because you think other users deserve adminship. If they deserve it, then why don't they nominate themselves or why don't you nominate them? Poketape 02:14, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I've completely rethought what I said before. I feel that the more admins we have, the swifter we can act towards any mishap.. -- T C E 03:54, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You're definitely trustworthy, and I believe that you would make the Wiki a better place if with your administrative powers. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 23:55, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I have confidence in the way in which Poketape handles things on the wiki. Also, I do not think that "there are more deserving users" is a valid reason to exclude Poketape, who I would consider to be one of the better candidates. --Scottie theNerd 11:05, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He is a great editor, very friendly and very mature. Since I myself became an admin I have noticed the need for, well, more admins. With the fairly small amount we have now, the wiki often goes without an admin, and therefore cannot always respond to issues as they arise. With more good admins, like Poketape, this won't be as prevalent of a problem. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 22:34, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards oppose- He honestly does have the edits, but is not on very often. He needs it, but for now a Neutral is the best I can give. However there are many others who need it far more then you do. Edit more often and I will gladly change to a support but for now a Neutral is the best I can give, because you don't deserve an oppose, yet haven't earned a support eithier. Peter Griffen Boy 06:53, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment It would help if you named any of these users. Also, I've got almost 100 more mainspace edits than you and you submitted an RfA. Poketape 03:04, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In regards to several votes: the fact that others "deserve" it more should not have any bearing on this particular RfA. --Scottie theNerd 11:46, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I don't know too many people on this, but poketape definitely has the experience and mainspace posts for it. Also, with this deserving thing, does it really matter? I know it does morally, but we also have to remember the health of the wiki itself, in my opinion if we didn't have people like poketape for admin the wiki would be poorer for it. Smuff 19:20, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Poketape has proven himself to be quite a competent editor whose contributions to the wiki are without a doubt, impressive. He has shown civility when dealing with community discussion and demonstrates maturity in conversations. Poketape is a veracious and dependable contributor to the wiki, and I believe that he is worthy of administrative powers. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 23:02, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- Okay, if I could I would be neutral. We need people to fight vandals, but we have people who've been here long and are expirianced. I cant vote, because I'm new, but this is the vote I would pick. :) :( :| oops. forgot PPSHREAPER413 Feb. 22, 2010.

I'm not sure what this is adding. Could you clarify? --Scottie theNerd 08:53, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

User lacks mainspace edits and therefore can't say anything. Poketape 22:37, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Poketape is a great editor, and he is also very knowing of policies and procedures. With all of the traffic from MW2 hype, we need all the admins we can get. -- CoD addict (talk · edits) 19:55, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

RfA successful; Poke will be given administrator rights shortly. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 06:57, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Imrlybord7 (3)

Imrlybord7^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Well, I figure I'll give it another shot. My biggest contributions to the wiki are listed on my user page. I am an extremely good writer and very knowledgeable when it comes to the programming and engine mechanics behind Call of Duty games (specifically MW, WaW, and MW2). In the past few months I have become very involved in reporting vandals to admins and fixing pages that have been vandalized. I have also been avoiding confrontation, for the most part. The only big argument I was in within the past few months was with Peter Griffen Boy, and I feel that I handled it about as well as anyone could. Long story short, I brought up his incident with Warpanda13 in his RfA as kindly and respectfully as I could because it had to be brought up and he himself said he was looking for feedback, and then he and Warpanda13 both flipped out on me. Both of them have apologized to me and things have cooled down. With adminship I will be able to deal with vandals on my own, manage articles better, and shape CoD wiki policy (what should and shouldn't be included in articles, stuff with usergroups, hopefully give the Manual of Style some more attention, etc.). Whether you support or oppose, be sure to jam the vote (SNL reference)! Imrlybord7 18:56, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support	14
Neutral	1
Oppose	4

Support - I don't see why not. Imrlybord is a good editor, and an overall nice guy. Although he can get peeved at people who act stupid, who doesn't? He has full support from me and I'd like to see him being made admin over anyone else at this stage. Also, with CoD7 coming up, we can expect a lot of discussion, and we need Imrlybord's expertise to help like he did with MW2. His expertise could be put to even more use with more tools at his disposal. Also, albeit a minor reason I feel Imrlybord wasn't credited enough for his work with MW2, I mean his weapon list was copied used on many youtube videos. Who's with me?     21:08, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose -�You are not fit for the powers of being an Admin. You are rude, one of the most offensive people here, and just dont deserve the Admin title. Slowrider7 21:19, January 27, 2010 (UTC) User withdraws his vote. Slowrider7 01:03, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Three things. 1) Midterm exam week (over in 2 days). 2) College Application process (finished next week). 3) I am usually on many times throughout the day. This wasn't meant to sound snarky or anything, just to explain my situation. Imrlybord7 22:53, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - You were blocked just last month for a personal attack on another user. Now, I don't mean to be that guy who hides behind links as an argument, but I honestly think someone with people skills like that should not be given administrative powers that soon after a block. There is no question that some of your edits have been invaluable to the wiki, but your methods of solving community issues needs to improve a little bit more. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 00:19, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Great editor, but the recent block and a history of conflicts with some users tarnishes this nomination. With due respect to Callofduty4, it's not okay for an admin to be occasionaly peeved off at people. An admin needs to be impartial and fair, lest he or she gets into a conflict of interest. The attitude shown in the recent block does not seem fitting for an admin. I also think the involvement with the Peter Griffin Boy and Warpanda13 incident was not professionally conducted, and while the intentions were good, the manner in which the issue progressed does not give me faith in his capacity to work with the community on an admin level. --Scottie theNerd 01:23, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - While you're an excellent editor, a nice guy, and very smart, I'd have to say that the thing that is concerning me is your argument with Razgriez. It was very intense, and though you both apologized, that argument was extremely unnecessary. However, I feel that you'd help this place a lot, organize it, and make policies better known. If I get to know you more, I might switch to support --- T C E 03:58, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral leaning towards support - I think Razgriez should issue a statement whether he has completely forgiven you or not. If Razgriez is still mad at you then a rivalry between an admin and him would be disastrous. You're more intelligent than most editors. For the same reasons as Callofduty4, I think you might prove useful when COD7 footage leaks. Personally, -- User:Daoneandonlyharry User does not have enough mainspace edits... -- T C E 05:25, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

"more intelligent than most editors." And the understatement of the century award goes to...! Imrlybord7 16:02, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- You have gotten into much fights with PGB and I don't care who started it. also, you antaginize(don't know how to spell it) a lot of themWarpanda13 21:34, January 29, 2010 (UTC) User lacks mainspace edits. Please remember to sign, not just sign and delete the name so people can't find out who you are.Poketape 00:07, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Imrlybord's certainly one of the most, if not the most intelligent user on the wiki. He posts some of the most interesting, and cunning comments on blogs. I honestly have no problem with making him an admin, even though he has trouble keeping his cool. He's not the only one, I'm infamous here with certain users for not keeping my cool. Still, I prove myself to be admin material. I think Imrlybord has proved himself. I can't stress enough how much worse the wiki would be without Imrlybord. The MW2 articles would not be in the shape they are in, without the time he spent researching MW2 info. He spent a lot of his time for his benefit, and he was never thanked properly for his work. The sole fact he spent his time for our benefit shows how selfless he is. He'd do anything to help us and the wiki. He's one of the most dedicated users, even though he doesn't have the highest editcount or does not spend as much on the wiki as some people do. Don't worry, I can expect him to be on when info regarding CoD7 starts pouring in. I think he could benefit from admin tools more than anyone else at the moment. Adminship is not extra rights, it is simply extra tools that Imrlybord can most certainly be trusted with.     22:51, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Imrlybord is an intelligent and highly capable editor. However, being an admin isn't just having access to admin tools. It's about building and maintaining a positive, productive environment that welcomes other editors and fosters communication and understanding. If an admin gets into personal conflicts with users, sure, they can still do a good job, but they also run the wiki community in the ground by deterring other editors. It's bad image for the wiki to reward users with more privileges and control when they violate rules. I will admit, there are times when you, Callofduty4, have put me off from editing with some of your comments and actions. Just a quick look at the comments made by Imrlybord on other RfAs don't exactly give me the image of someone who can keep positive relations with the community. I don't doubt that he's willing to do anything for the wiki, but if that includes flaming the hell out of editors, I'm a bit more reluctant than most.

That isn't to say that Imrlybord shouldn't be admin, but I'd like to see a longer-term change of attitude to prove that he has the maturity, civility and professionalism that many would expect from an admin. --Scottie theNerd 11:02, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support Per callofduty4's comment. He's done a lot of work on Modern Warfare 2 content. E.TALE ^Barracks Headquarters01:37, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Imrlybord7 has those capabilities. He's a nice person and I honestly think he will have no trouble as an admin. And how have I put you off editing? I've done too much here to be let down again.     14:39, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose- He's a very rude and impatient user. Has started many flamewars between me and him, and has brough up my warpanda situation many times as an attempt to hurt me. I'm sorry, if he stops this, he deserves it. Letting him be an admin, will make him block a lot of people. He's so smart, he's strange and stupid. Peter Griffen Boy 21:28, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- I never apoligized for defending myself. That outright was a lie, when he was talking about Warpanda 13. Peter Griffen Boy 23:23, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - "has brough up my warpanda situation many times as an attempt to hurt me." Anyone who has read our exchange knows that pretty much all of the incivility was on your side of the table. I honestly can't believe you would even bring this up again. "I never apologized for defending myself. That outright was a lie when he was talking about Warpanda 13." Apparently you don't remember the blog post where you apologized for being "a douche" (your words, not mine). This blog was posted after all arguments had ended. Here's a direct quote from your apologetic blog post. "I must say for all that I've done, I am truly sorry, to the following: Imrllybord7." Apparently you didn't really mean "all that I've done." If anyone wants to get the real facts on what happened, read [[1]], [[2]], and this. Imrlybord7 05:31, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I supported him last time and I'll support him again. He has definitely improved on his interactions with people, but there are still a few incidents. Continue to work on this, 'Bord, but I definitely feel I can trust you with the tools, and I feel the wiki will be better off with you having them. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 22:34, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The way Imrlybord always comes up with an excellent counter statement tells a lot about him, eh?     21:40, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - A great user, great help to the entire community, completely deserving and, let's face it, you can't mess around with him. Doc.Richtofen 15:54, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It's hard to denounce or ignore the fact that Imrlybord has done a lot for the site, notably some of the original Modern Warfare 2 coverage and article development. Though, while he has edited, he has often gotten into arguments with hardly the most civil of manners. Also, as even seen here, he acts like he is more important than other users, often openly stating it. Whether or not it is true is beside the point. A key thing an administrator would need to comprehend is the concept of AEAE, which I don't think he either completely understand or acts upon. An administrator saying "I am more important than you" would most certainly not be beneifical to whoever it is said to. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 00:45, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't know if this somehow completely compromises my RfA, but I still feel the need to speak my mind. Why does the AEAE policy exist? Admins, 808, Richtofen, Poketape, Bovell, Juan, myself, and a few others practically make this whole site. Chia, if you honestly feel that an anonymous IP that contributes a single, poorly written, factually inaccurate section to an article in good faith is just as important as you, well then I just don't know what to say other than, "WHAAAA???" Imrlybord7 02:43, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

AEAE is the core of any wiki. Some editors contribute more than others, but all editors are equal. We don't discriminate against anonymous editors who have poor writing skills or a less-than-perfect knowledge of the game; that's why other editors are equally able to make the necessary changes. AEAE is the basis from which I can disagree with a policy and revert an edit made by an admin without getting blocked, just as others can disagree with me and revert my edits. If one editor was the single-most important contributor to the wiki, I wouldn't consider him or her superior. They would be first among equals. --Scottie theNerd 05:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Eloquent and concise as always. If it had been put in terms of primus inter pares from the beginning, I never would have disputed it. I agree that everyone who is well intentioned should have the right to edit freely and on equal terms (unless they are somehow very destructive, which I can't really imagine). I had thought that AEAE implied that all editors were equally valuable to the site, which just didn't make any sense for obvious reasons, and wouldn't really make sense as a policy to begin with. Damn, now I feel stupid. Imrlybord7 06:50, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- The Warpands situation was handled very immaturely by him. Even it was far and dsone, he still gkept on bringing it up and used it to get other users to oppopse me on my adminship request. He acts very cruel and thinks because he's smart and can get away with argueing. Peter Griffen Boy 00:39, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Support - This guy deserves adminship, hes smart, intellegent, a good editor, and not afraid to take a shot at someone. That may sound bad, but it's actually good. Imagine theres some users represented by a group of sheep, and wiki articles are like grass. Without a shepard, the sheep would wander freely and eat at the grass (the artcles) ruining the overall quality of the field. Now imagine Imrlybored is a shepard, and one of sheep gets out of line, and starts hacking at the grass. He'll tell the sheep to get real, and make an example to the other sheep, which will keep them in line. On these wikis you need to be able to exercise discipline slightly, and you need someone who actually has a brain between those 2 ears. Imrlybored has a brain, and the kutzpah to use that with a properly. Sure, according to some he may need to improve his people skills slightly, and may need to reread AEAE again (He is pretty important though), but other than that he is certain to do a great job. Also, lets face it, would you actually want to get in a fight with this man? I didn't think so... Smuff 12:42, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

I find this analogy to be very inappropriate. We're not sheep -- we're intellectual, conscious and knowledgable editors. I don't need someone to discipline me or have a shot at me. I expect admins to perform their duties professionally and without incident, not engage in personal attacks and getting personally involved in matters. I don't want to get in a fight with him because I don't want to fight with anyone. That's not a platform for someone to campaign for adminship. I can definitely agree with the first three descriptors, but willing to take a shot at anyone is not a trait I'd want in an admin. --Scottie theNerd 13:13, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Well the sheep thing was just an analagy, I couldn't really think off any good ones. But there are a few editors who make silly random articles, that belong on forums rather than articles, that you want to take and slap across the ear. Also, maybe taking a shot was also wrong of me, I should have meant something more along the lines off.... a small talking to; forgive my infrequent bad usages of English, they do crop up every once in a while. But this guy is by far one of the most important and dedicated users on the entire wiki (Only about 10% of his edits are probably to do with user's talk pages... His talk page does provide a good wee laugh every once in a while) and I do believe that he does deserve the title due to his sheer devotion to the wiki, who knows, it might actually improve his people skills. Speaking of which, why don't you nominate yourself for adminship? You're a good editor and show a ton of adminship qualities. Smuff 14:54, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Smuff. And Scottie, I think you are severely overestimating the populace of this wiki. While there are plenty of great editors, there are many more not so great editors. Other than the whole Razgriez thing, to which I will admit to being in the wrong, I have only been quarreling with Peter Griffen Boy and II Superlative, as I feel that both of them are strong negative influences on the community. It's not like I'm cruising around looking for fights. Oh, and Smuff, to check the distribution of a user's edits, go to Special:Editcount and type in their username. Imrlybord7 20:40, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the shortcomings of the general editing populace. However, administration is about action, not words. I'm not convinced that quarelling with users, whether or not they deserve it, is a positive trait to see in an admin. --Scottie theNerd 10:46, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support I think Imrlybord truly deserves this Adminship. He is smart and always provides useful feedback. I think he doesn't deserve to be punished for getting in a fight with Peter Griffen Boy who managed to infuriate almost everybody (Me included) on this wiki.AdvancedRookie 20:46, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

'Strongly Support' I'm gonna keep this breif. I think all of my comments have already been said, but he edits alot, he has good gramer and he contributes alot. With COD 7 coming out soon we need all of the admins we can get and Imrlybord7 would be a great additon. Although he has had problems with people in the past, THAT IS THE PAST, to me he seems to be a good guy, and before i voted i looked at a few of his past arguments and i do not not belive that he was entierly wrong. Plus every one i human. So i support Imrlybord7 Lt. Col. Gen.Cain^{T C E} 18:32, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

The "past" wasn't that long ago. It's one thing for people to work off their errors from the past (which Imrlybord is more than capable of); but ignoring the past is the worst thing someone can do. --Scottie theNerd 12:30, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

It still is the past it doesnt matter how long ago it was. I feel that Imrlybord has worked off his errors. And im not saying to forget the past but it is not everything if all we do is look at the past we can never improve our future Lt. Col. Gen.Cain^{T C E} 15:30, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

No one said the past is everything. However, recent events have a stronger hold on people's minds, and that's why it matters. --Scottie theNerd 10:56, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support-Same as above, Great editor just stay away from arguments. DanielM4712 19:25, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards support - While you are a great editor and have done a lot better than a few months ago in handling unpleasant situations, I don't think you're quite there yet. Give it another couple months and I'll be happy to give you my support--WouldYouKindly 00:59, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support, I believe he has what it takes to be a real admin, and he's involved enough in the wikia to handle his powers responsibly.TNT LotLP 15:40, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - While I can't say that I've been a user here for an incredible length of time, I can say that during my time here Imrlybord7's never given me problems. The guy has an ASTOUNDING grasp of the game engines and how they affect play in almost every conceivable situation (as well as general info about the games themselves), and gets his ideas across in his edits and blogspaces with an incredible writing talent. I've spoken with him a few times and he didn't seem anything but even and tempered, and holds a genuine interest in the CoDWiki community, so there it is. -- Echo Four Delta 18:37, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Bord is definitely one of the most intelligent people on the site. He's an excellent writer, and is realistic about the games and balance, and he roots out vandals often. Support. Pup42512n 02:27, February 23, 2010 (UTC)pup42512n User lacks mainspace edits :\ User has accumulated mainspace edits. -- CoD addict (talk · edits) 22:34, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I suppose the prerequisites for adminship are having a large amount of edits (and thus displaying commitment and support for the wiki) and being well known and liked by the community (and thus allowing people to ask you questions and for help without feeling like a stranger). There is no doubting or dissent (from me or anyone else here it seems) that Bord is qualified in the first category. As to the second category, because of AEAE and other determining factors, aside from blocking, there is little that an admin can do to a person that a normal user cannot. While it appears that Bord gets into situations and they occasionally turn more vehement that originally intended, that does not happen in every situation, and certainly doesn't mean that he'd just start blocking everyone who crossed him. The fact that he takes up arguments with the person in question, rather than asking for outside help results in larger arguments, but it also signifies a need to resolve the argument without just getting an admin to end it. If that happens, the people are still angry, and are likely to fight again. While I can't say I definitely agree with Bord's style of "negotiating" with other users, it shows more than face value (in my opinion). So I think he passes both of the adminship tests. Cheers, Icepacks 13:01, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I support Imrlybord7 mainly because of his high-quality edits as well as his ability to track down vandals extremely quickly. I have seen some flame wars in the past; however, none of them have concerned me and I haven't seen one in a while. He is a good user who will benefit the Wiki as an admin with rollback privileges especially in these times of increased traffic and vandalism.-- CoD addict (talk · edits) 22:29, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

RfA successful; Bord will be given administrator rights shortly. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 06:57, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

EightOhEight

EightOhEight^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I'll keep this somewhat short. Whenever I see EightOhEight posting on a blog or a discussion page, he has a cool head. He has edited a lot. I find him trustworthy. I don't have a thought in my mind that he would abuse his powers if granted to him. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 00:45, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support	4
Neutral	4
Oppose	3

Oppose Don't get me wrong, he is a great user, but he only has about 250 main space edits. E.TALE ^Barracks Headquarters01:57, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Too few mainspace edits, but there is no question that he absolutely needs to be an admin at some point. Not to go off topic, but so does Scottie theNerd. Imrlybord7 02:07, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I hear you all, and I see your points. Firstly, though, I believe to consider a new admin, you must first look at his personal qualities - his general behavior, maturity, friendliness, and skill at handling situations. Then, look at first the quality of his edits and then the quantity. That is my belief, and it is unlikely to change

Second, most of my recent mainspace edits are well thought through and not just slapped on to increase my mainspace count. I am working at it, but time is an issue for me. I do not have any expectations of this request to be passed, but I just want to make my point clear.

Third, Chiafriend is a senior and very mature user. I doubt he would've taken me into consideration if there wasn't a good reason.

Thank you all, and please take the time to consider what I said. -- T C E 05:25, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support 808's a mature and trustworthy user. I believe he'd do well with admin powers. Even if you don't get it this time you definitely should try again in a month or two.--WouldYouKindly 05:52, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - 808 has proven to be a responsible and mature editor who is able to discuss things with civility. 250 mainspace edits is more than some and the quality of his edits is high. However, I generally feel that 808 hasn't quite stood out from other editors, and with only two months on the wiki, I don't feel it's quite time for 808 to step up to the admin level. I think soon he will be, but not yet. --Scottie theNerd 05:55, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While 808 is a fabulous editor, and not to mention an awesome userbar maker, and a nice person he does unfortunately lack the mainspace edits. While by no doubt he should be made an admin at some point, I would like to see a bit more action on the mainspace.     17:58, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet- 808 will get it some time, later on this year at 'LEAST', but I don't feel like he's been here long enough. Must you also be on for at least three months, no matter how high quality you are. Also blog posts don't really count for admin powers, unless they've done something on mainspace as the main reason, then the blog can count. But really later on, maybe this mid Summer to early Fall. When Vietnam comes out, he should get it very soon. Peter Griffen Boy 00:40, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I've been here for around four, I think. -- T C E 05:24, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Your profile says December 1, 2009; which makes it over 2 months. --Scottie theNerd 12:58, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Chiafriend12. Doc.Richtofen 16:03, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- He needs more mainspace edits. 200 is not nearly enough, and his mainspace is just as big as he blog posts. I hate Peter Griffen Boy because he thinks he has enough mainspace, when he has around 480, but only 200. Come on man! Michael Jackson's Boy643 19:52, February 5, 2010 (UTC) _{User does not have required mainspace edit count--WouldYouKindly 19:55, February 5, 2010 (UTC)}

Neutral - EightOhEight is a great editor and should definitely get admin soon, but I think now is a little too early. The time will come though, the time will come. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 20:14, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - When I was attempted to become an admin, on my Rfa, Chai said that blog posts don't really count. 808 doesn't have enough mainspace or overall edits to become on in my book. I guess Not Yet would be a better choice. If he gets it, it would be stupid that I didn't get it. Just sayin' what I mean, not trying to say I need to be an admin. Peter Griffen Boy 23:06, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it was better left unsaid then. The "if he becomes admin, I should become admin too" mentality isn't really fitting for positions of responsibility. This isn't a contest; and it's up to the community and the admins to judge who should or shouldn't be admins. --Scottie theNerd 02:16, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - For the last time, you act obnoxious and often insult people with your blogs. Of course you're not going to get it, based on your past immaturity. I hope this finally cleared it up. —Unsigned comment was added by EightOhEight

Comment - It's hilarious that he thinks he could ever become an admin, and even more hilarious that he thinks he deserves it more than other users. Imrlybord7 02:05, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral/Not yet - I feel guilty adding my vote to another RfA while mine is active, but 808 asked for my opinion. It is quite clear that the quality, not the quantity, of his edits are what make him an outstanding user. His maturity and overall calmness is self-evident when he comments, earning just about everyone's respect. I have no doubt that 808 is capable of receiving administrative privileges in the future, but I believe a little more experience is needed before those powers are given. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 23:14, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- Imrlybord7 the reason you're getting opposed is because you're a smart ass. 808 you'll get it sometime, but you're not expirenced enough, and I don't think the COD:IAR policy can work for you not being here long enough. ONly 200 mainspace edits and 200 blog posts. Like Chai said, blog post edits are not a reason to be an admin. Peter Griffen Boy 20:13, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - God, how many times do I have to explain this? First of all, it can work for me. I am experienced; I'm already a sysop on a different wikia.

I'm sick and tired of you. I've done much more for the wikia than you. I created a toolbar; I fixed complete walkthroughs; and the only person here who hates me is you. You, you start flamewars, make average/mediocre edits, insult people, and make offensive jokes. I hope I cleared it up once and for all. -- T C E 20:21, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- I don't hate you 808, I just think you need some more time here on the wiki, as I said you're a Not Yet, I'm nuetral on the matter. Peter Griffen Boy 20:39, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support- I think 808 would be a great admin as he always contributes well to this wiki and never gets into arguements.AdvancedRookie 19:55, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Unsuccessful; Eight will not be given administrative powers at this time. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 06:57, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

DevilWarrior112

DevilWarrior112^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

- I'm going to give it a try now. The vandals are annoying me now and I welcome new users to the wiki all the time. I also have done work on my subpages very hard. DevilWarrior112 07:51, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support	0
Neutral	1
Oppose	7

Oppose - Great user with tons of mainspace edits, but not involved enough in the community. You need to establish widespread trust and respect first, and I don't think that many users know you. Sorry. Imrlybord7 08:19, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose-You'll get there kid, but right now I gotta say nah. Peter Griffen Boy 19:42, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Imrlybord7. Doc.Richtofen 21:10, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Imrlybord7. Slowrider7 21:30, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I just don't really know you well enough. I want to make it clear that I have nothing against you though. -- Alex Martin Rider 21:48, February 26, 2010 (UTC) User lacks mainspace edits. Poketape 03:49, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - *Tries to think of something original* ...Ah, screw it, per Imrlybord. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 22:06, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Erm... err... yeah, per all.     22:11, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, I'm with Imrlybord here, I've never seen you until here, and I'm on this ALOT. Smuff 22:12, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - On your user page you said you created "The Gulag," but I created that. I also noticed that some of the other pages were created with one word. For the article of "Takedown," you started the article with "Slums." You definately need more time here. Poketape 03:27, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'll try again in a few months time. So I'll accept all your comments. Sorry for screwing up. DevilWarrior112 09:00, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Don't consider it a screw-up. It's a learning experience. RFAs are a great way for users to see what areas they need improvement in. So don't worry about it. Imrlybord7 09:25, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Per Imrlybord7. Doc.Richtofen 14:52, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet - Per all. Good user judging by his contributions, but not all that well-known to the community.--WouldYouKindly 16:47, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm trying to get more involoved in the community by posting comments on blogs, talk pages and more. I'll do it again at about March or April. OK? DevilWarrior11216:20, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Fine by me. Also, this page, UoTM's, RIDA's and FA's are good places to get involved. DrRichtofen (Talk)

Nomination Closed, RfA Unsuccessful File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 19:42, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

DevilWarrior112 (2)

My RFA a month ago didn't work because I wasn't involved in the community enough. But I've tried to in blog posts, talk pages and more. I'm trying to become an admin because I can revese vandals, stay more connected with the community and help the wiki become a better wiki.

• Started a blog story "The Black Devil"
• More active in the community
• Editing pages that need editing.

DevilWarrior112

Support	0
Neutral	0
Oppose	2

• Oppose - Erm, it's been a week since your RFA. Your previous RFA hasn't even closed yet. One week isn't enough to see significant changes that prove your suitability as an admin. Of your points of improvement, #2 and #3 are vague and generic; while #1 has absolutely nothing to do with administration -- blog posting is a personal activity; not community involvement. As you commented previously, you need a few months to work on your areas of improvement. It's only been a few days. Patience, I beg of you. --Scottie theNerd 11:40, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - /facepalm Imrlybord7 13:32, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Can I delete this? DevilWarrior11215:50, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Nope. DrRichtofen (Talk)

RFA Closed - User already has an open RFA. Imrlybord7 15:58, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

EightOhEight (2)

EightOhEight^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

This is my second try. I'm trying again because during the course of this RFA, I am hoping to accumulate close to 150 mainspace edits.

Anyway, for those of you who do not know me, I'm EightOhEight. I design userbars, creative images, and other things for the members of this wiki. I make decent edits, and I've made many disambiguation pages. I've fixed many walkthroughs, and I've created our own browser toolbar.

Last time, people said that my lack of mainspace edits and the short amount of time I have been here were the only reasons they opposed me. However, I have shown that I can handle situations, and I have past experience being a sysop[3]. I maintain that wiki all by myself.

I had the full support of a bureaucrat, and some respected and senior users. I feel I can do my job better if I have admin powers, especially because I can control vandalism late at night. -- T C E 06:34, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support	14
Neutral	1
Oppose	0

Support - Damn it, I liked being the late night vandal blocker. But yeah, you have proven yourself more than worthy. Imrlybord7 08:45, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Imrlybord7 (What? What else is there to say?) DrRichtofen (Talk)

Support - I think we can trust him to do a good job.     11:42, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You have done well on the wiki and you are very mature. You certainly deserve to become a administrator. User lacks required mainspace edits. Imrlybord7 14:02, February 28, 2010 (UTC) —Unsigned comment was added by Dark Frager

Support - Me & you have never really spoken, but I already know your a damn fine editor and you participate socially here too, as in blogs. Slowrider7 13:50, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Have you really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? C'mon. Really? Imrlybord7 14:02, February 28, 2010 (UTC) Slowrider7 13:50, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Proven to be a reliable and dedicated editor; has the know-how to be a good admin. However, I'm a bit concerned that this sets a bad precedent for future RFAs. It's barely been a week since 808's previous RFA was closed, and while the first RFA went on for quite a while, it doesn't seem quite right for another attempt so soon after the first. Perhaps this is something that should be looked at? --Scottie theNerd 14:00, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I understand that, but when Chia nominated me, he didn't bother to write something that described me well. -- T C E 17:03, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral- Your lack of mainspace edits is what concerns me, as you've made a few good edits, but not nearly enough to get there alone. While becoming an admin on any wiki is good, your wiki is very empty and few of vandals, so it doesn't make me quite feel ready to support. However, you've been a mature user and have made some good userbars. Both of these are very strong points and cancel each other out, therefore I'm going to have to go for neutral. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Support per all.--WouldYouKindly 16:46, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support Yeah, basically everything has been said by my fellow supporters. -ScotlandTheBest 16:49, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - 808 is a great user and he will not abuse his admin powers. Cpl. Dunn 18:15, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - 808 is great. He helped me with my signature, when I was asking the most stupid questions. I'm surprised he isn't already an admin. File:Emblem-eagle.jpg II Helljumper II 18:22, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - 808 isn't an admin? I thought he was, he certainlty looks after this wiki well and displays a ton of admin like qualities, he's perfect for the job. Smuff 18:54, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Support - It's strange he ain't admin yet. His edits is good, and he looks after the wiki very well. User lacks required mainspace edits. Imrlybord7 19:03, February 28, 2010 (UTC) Captain Knutzen 19:00, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - 808 is a great editor, friendly helper, and is very creative. I think that 808's most valuable asset as an admin with rollback abilities is the time zone he lives in. Most vandals think they are clever when they get up from their bed in New Jersey, let's say, at 2 a.m., but that doesn't stop 808 from reverting their edits, because where he lives it's like 9 p.m.! -- CoD addict (talk · edits) 19:32, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support Per all above, great user, nice, well known. All in all admin materialLt. Col. Gen.Cain^{T C E} 21:32, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support Per all. He's a great user and very nice to everybody. Poketape 21:33, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Ah, hell, why not? SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 00:17, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Nomination Complete, RfA Successful EightOhEight will become an admin shortly. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 05:00, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Now he will be given administrative powers shortly. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 05:18, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Peter Griffen Boy (2)

Peter Griffen Boy^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I've been told by some users to try to get some suggestions from other users, so here I go again. I've been an admin on another wiki, (the Call of Duty Fanon Wiki, also known as MUC) and feel that I have matured up significantly, and have gotten about 650 mainspace edits and just got 3000 total edits. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Support	0
Neutral	4
Oppose	10

Neutral - You have matured up and now have no problems here with any users, which is a good thing. The problem why I can't support you is that you have only recently came off of a block. If you had not have been blocked I would have supported but unfortunately, it is a neutral from me. Doc.Richtofen 16:13, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet/Weak Oppose - While I totally agree you have matured significantly, you're mainspace edit count is still quite low, and your recent block is very fresh in people's heads. I would wait until March/April or when you reach 1000 mainspace edits. Then I'd full on support you.     16:16, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- Good to see people aren't still angry, I'm here to take some advice from my other users. However on mainspace edits may I argue that Poketape does have a tad bit more mainspace then I do (around twenty) and still got in? I still enjoy seeing Weak Opposes and Nuetrals.

Comment - Correct. I didn't exactly support Poketape's RFA though. I still want to see some more mainspace action and then that weak oppose of mine will turn into a weak support, and with even more mainspace edits it will turn it into a full on support.     16:32, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Please don't bring me into this. He actually opposed my rfa. (Although from a vote standpoint weak oppose and oppose are the same thing). Poketape 21:29, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

'Neutral - In the requirements, it says an admin can not have had any serious offenses. Maybe we can overrule that in your favor, but it's been two days since you got off your block for a series of personal harassment. However, the change in your attitude has been so great over those 30 days that I have to say I'm pleased. Also, being an admin on a fanon wiki isn't that much of a great achievement, especially when it has 4 or 5 editors and pretty much no vandals. Just keep at it the way you are now, and prove to people that you have matured, and it'll be fine. -- T C E 17:14, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This should also be looked at. It's very concerning. -- T C E 18:39, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm going to set aside all of your past misdemeanors, which itself is a pretty big issue. You just came off of a ban, and your actions that caused said ban are still pretty questionable. But here's the thing - the top THREE editors on this wikia without powers are: CoD1, you and me. I looked into the edit stats:

You have, as of now, 668 mainspace edits, leading up to a 22%. Your highest percentage is Blog Posts, totaling up to 821 user blog comments and 157 blog edits. That adds up to 978 blog edits, or approximately 32%. Adding your user page edits and talk page edits, (291 and 993 respectively, 1,284 together) that gives you a 42% with that. 42 + 32 = 74. You could add everything else into account - more than 75% of your edits are... well... not mainspace edits.

CoD1 has 1,085 mainspace edits, giving him over 52%. I have nothing against that.

I have 1,572 mainspace edits, totaling up to 91% mainspace.

Mainspace editing alone... sorry, but this is how I see it. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez ^{Reportin' for duty.} 17:38, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with what you're saying, but just because his percentage isn't above 50 doesn't mean anything. We look at count, not percentage. -- T C E 17:41, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - As 808 said, percentage means little compared to the number of edits. In many ways, looking only at mainspace edits and percentages punishes editors who take a more active part in discussion on Talk pages and COD space. --Scottie theNerd 10:05, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I really wish you had listened to the advice I gave you on your talk page. The community is not ready to trust you yet, and I am not confident that giving you admin powers will really help the wiki. I gave you more than enough advice on how to best go about becoming an admin. It is way too soon and you still aren't ready for adminship, even ignoring your past offenses. Also, constantly RFA'ing when most users feel that you aren't ready comes across as arrogant, impatient, and immature, which can hurt your chances in future RFAs, where your chances at success would have been more realistic (but don't worry, it's not like you've sentenced yourself to death by doing this or anything like that). And if this is another RFA that is just for the purpose of getting user input, then "bad idea" is really all I have to say. There are plenty of other ways to get user input. Imrlybord7 18:31, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Give it another month or two, you have matured up, let's see if it stays that way... Smuff 18:46, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Two days after a block that was actually revoked early is a little too soon. It wasn't a minor offense either, for me, a one month block is far from minor. Plus I do believe that Juan made a great point in his comment. More than half of your upwards of 3000 edits come from user talk, user blog, and user blog comments alone. As Imrlybord has suggested, it may be in your best interest to wait a while before nominating yourself for adminship again, in order to earn the community's trust. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 19:17, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet An admin shouldn't have as many enemies as you. Also, an admin should have close to no blocks. This recent block shows you still need time. Poketape 21:35, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- Actully Poketape, besides stupid users that have no purpose but to be stupid, I honestly have no enemies. Jose and I are working our problems out. Greivier, EightOhEight and Bord have both been solved and so with Callofduty4. Also, I'mrlybord7 was blocked for one and a half days for flaming another user and still got it. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Comment - I doubt Jose would describe your conversation as "working it out". There's also Warpanda13. And 1 1/2 days ≠ 30 days. -- T C E 23:32, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment I especially can't support you after you tried to vote twice in the featured articles and got blocked. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 02:19, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I have no confidence in Peter Griffin Boy. Admins should have a clean record, which reflects their capacity to work positively with other users. There's no reason to waiver this requirement, especially since PGB has a serious record of offenses and has only just come back from a block. The wiki isn't that desperate for admins to appoint someone who has a proven to be inconsiderate and hot-headed. To make PGB an admin is to demean the purpose and status of an administrator. --Scottie theNerd 10:00, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Recent disputes and yet another block further establish that PGB is not suitable to be a member of the admin team. --Scottie theNerd 05:39, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I agree completely. I doubt that I will ever support you in an RFA, and I'm sure most users feel the same. Although you have demonstrated the potential to change, you have also shown that you are prone to misbehaving, which is an unacceptable trait for an admin. Imrlybord7 13:52, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Only about a couple hundred more edits PGB and you'll be there, ok? Jst hang in there and it will happen. DevilWarrior11216:04, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - When I first joined the Wikia, everyone was talking about something bad that PGB had done. I really don't know how bad it was but it sounded pretty bad. Lt. Dunn File:1stlt1.jpg 22:30, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- I never called Poketape a pussy. He blocked me with no warning or no real reason and I said it was starting to look like one. You can't just ban someone for accideently hitting two and then refusing to let them vote again because of a stupid accident. Poketape could have erased one and seen it as a mistake and just forgot about it, but no he blocked for an accident for one week, and I got Callofduty4's support on that. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Comment Actually you said I was acting like one. Although there's a difference, it's not very big. As for for blocking you, you started insulting me after taking away your double vote. If you simply explained yourself nothing would've happened. I'm still not sure how you accidentally voted twice, although it is possible because you forgot to leave your signature (which admins should always remember to do). I also had support for the block, but I don't want to bring those people into this. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 02:16, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- That was before I got this baby Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}, and it was late at night. From my point of view it looked like you were erasing my votes because didn't want anyone to oppose. Who knows someone else might have voted and not left anything, I might have done it late at night when I'm tired. I don't honestly care, it was one vote on a five support, not like it was gonna make a difference, and it's not vandalisim, because that page isn't really important to the wiki. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Comment - And that last comment of PGBs demonstrates exactly the kind of attitude that should not be held by an administrator. Imrlybord7 20:52, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- I was just seeing my point of view, if it really botherd you, you could have just erased one vote, as I see User:Smuff got his edit undone and a little protection block to stop from further harm, but if i make a mistake I guess I'm a nasty vandal. Anyway, it's not likely to change anything, but I got 800 mainsapce now. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Comment So you're saying you trying to cheat the system is the same as having your little brother access your account and write spam. I don't remember him attacking admins for getting blocked. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 03:34, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm going to say "NO WAY" after seeing his recent argument with JJR. In my opinion, it shows he can't handle actually being nice to people and showing respect for people in the community, even admins. If he doesn't respect an admin as a user, how will he respect us as an admin? Cpl. Wilding 03:14, March 10, 2010 (UTC) c

Oppose/Not yet -Mabey if he submited in four months and had no fights. But there has been to much flaming. So No. --Lt. Col. Gen.Cain^{T C E} 00:50, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Personal conflicts aside, one thing I find at fault with PGB and his applications is that he is too keen to become an admin (i.e. trying too hard). Chiafriend quoted Jimbo Wales along the lines of being an administrator not being that big a deal. If you're actually trying to be an admin and plan ahead on when you'll apply next, it shows me that you're interested in the position and the power more than the actual responsibility. You don't have to be an admin to be an asset to the community. If you're not getting along with other users or other admins, you're not going to enjoy being an admin, and the community won't appreciate you being one either. This is an important understanding that should be considered by future applicants. --Scottie theNerd 06:26, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Nomination Complete, Nomination Unsuccessful File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 00:55, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Cpl. Wilding (2)

I believe my last RfA failed either because I didn't have the mainspace or it was just too soon. Either way, I believe I have the skills to be an admin and to help the wiki become a better place.

• Over 800 mainspace edits

• Active in the community

• Started "The War on Impersonal Yous"
• Has reverted a lot of vandalism

Cpl. Wilding^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Support	6
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Pending/Comment - You may be the most active member of the coalition against impersonal yous, but I'm still the founder. Anyway, you are clearly a great editor, but I'm not entirely sure that you wield enough influence to be deserving of adminship. Sorry to leave you hanging like that. Imrlybord7 13:44, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Pending - Per Imrlybord7. It shouldn't be long though before it will be supports. It's sort of like with DevilWarrior, get your opinion heard in more places and that will help. DrRichtofen (Talk)

Change to Support - After looking through your contributions I think you are worthy. Imrlybord7 16:29, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Wilding is a deserving and active editor. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 22:16, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Wilding is an active user and has many mainspace edits. Lt. Dunn File:1stlt1.jpg 22:27, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per Imrlybord. But about point #3, that's vague and unprofessional. So I can say that I started "The War On Vandals"? -- T C E 21:06, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You are a very active editor, I see you fixing things all the time. I think you would make a great admin as you have the wiki's best interest in mind. —Unsigned comment was added by Brothertim

Change to Support - Per Saint. DrRichtofen (Talk)

Comment - (if this is wrong, oh well) After consideration, I am withdrawing my RfA for two reasons: 1: I've recently started a wiki and I am overwhelmed with the tasks required to keep it running, and now know I have a lot to learn before I can start adminship on here and 2: I feel as if the community still doesn't "know" me yet, seeing the support votes for Dr. Richtofen and JJR's RfA's. If an admin would be so kind, (WouldYouKindly, perhaps? :D) please close this and thank you. Cpl. Wilding 02:07, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

RFA Closed - Well if you're sure then. User withdrew nomination.--WouldYouKindly 02:44, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Doc.Richtofen

Doc.Richtofen^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I have been here since August 2009. In the past few months, I have become very involved in reporting vandals to admins and fixing pages that have been vandalized. I have an impeccable behaviour record. I have amassed over 750 mainspace edits. With administrative powers, I could handle pages better. I could also block vandals myself, instead of waiting for an admin to do it, which is sometimes a lengthy process. File:Richtofen.jpg Doc. Richtofen 15:28, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support	13
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support- I believe you would make a great admin.AdvancedRookie 19:51, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - With a perfect behavioral record and a lot of contributions to the site, I can't imagine why not. Imrlybord7 20:52, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Very easy-to-get-along-with user, and does excellent anti-vandal work as well. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 21:41, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The Doctor is a very kind and helpful user. He's mature, and has a flawless behavioral record. A great editor and user all round.      21:51, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Doc. has made many contributions and is always nice to new users. I think he would make an amazing admin. Lt. Dunn File:1stlt1.jpg 23:07, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support- Per all above and he has no enemies. Lt. Col. Gen.Cain^{T C E} 00:04, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Strong presence on the wiki. Has an excellent track record and an good attitude towards working with other editors. Would be an asset to the admin team. --Scottie theNerd 06:49, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Same thing I said about 808, how you're not an editor already beats me, you're one of the most dedicated editors to this wiki. Smuff 19:22, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Why not? One of the best editors here. Sorry you don't got enough mainspace edits. Dark Anomaly User lacks mainspace edits. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 19:34, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all, he is a great user. J~money ^{T C E} 03:03, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Perfect admin he'd be. I support him. DevilWarrior11207:58, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. He's a great and very nice user who would make a very good admin. 7th Body 23:59, March 13, 2010 (UTC)7th Body

Support - Perfect admin material, what with the perfect record, anti-vandal activity, and mainspace edits. -- CoD addict (talk · edits) 03:29, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Has a good edit count, has no enemies, is repected by the community and user of the month. Would be a good Admin. Cpt.Z 02:38, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Successful; Richtofen will be given administrator rights shortly. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 06:38, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

SaintofLosAngelesXD(m)

SaintofLosAngelesXD(m)^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I hereby nominate Saint for the position of bureaucrat. I feel that A) we need another 'crat (no offense to Chia, but it's too big a job for one user), and B) that Saint is the most "flawless" of all of the sysops. He is extremely intelligent, friendly, patient, helpful, dedicated, and well-behaved. I can think of no reason not to afford him these powers. Imrlybord7 17:41, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support	15
Neutral	0
Oppose	2

Support - as nominator. Imrlybord7 17:41, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Completely agree. DrRichtofen (Talk)

Support - I agree wholeheartedly with this nomination. Mmm, Crispy... 19:02, March 5, 2010 (UTC) User lacks mainspace edits.File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 18:30, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all, Saint's a good choice for the position.--WouldYouKindly 19:19, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - We definitely need another active b'crat -- EightOhEightT C E 20:12, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- I'm sorry, but he's more of the social editor. He's made around 930 mainspace edits, but I see another, more deserving, better editing admin right below this. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Comment RfAs shouldn't be affected by each other. It's whether or not Saint is deserving. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 04:13, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support Definately. I wish I nominated him! File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 00:03, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Has the right method and manner for someone to take on higher administration duties. --Scottie theNerd 04:16, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Saint is well known and we need another bureaucrat. Lt. Dunn File:1stlt1.jpg 02:22, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks to all for the support. Much appreciated. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 23:55, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Great user and well respected in the community. J~money ^{T C E} 02:45, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Great person, editor, admin and steam friend.AdvancedRookie 16:12, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - . Saint is an amazing user and admin for alot of reasons. To name a few: 1) When ever i need help with something I know I can go to Saint for help and within a day he will have helped me. 2) Saint is a really frendily user, he has baseicly no enemies and he is always involved in discussions. --Lt. Col. Gen.Cain^{T C E} 00:35, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I agree. DevilWarrior11214:41, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Nothing much left to say. IcepacKs 00:37, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above; there's really not much else that can be said excpet to reinforce the perception of impartiality - I don't think I've seen a cross word directed at anybody on Saint's part since I started editing here a few months ago. -- Griever0311 00:49, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - As supposed "bureaucrat material", you should understand me when I say that I'm more worthy of becoming a bureaucrat. I've been here longer than you, I have more edits than you, and I've given up more time for this wiki than you, so why you have more support votes than me I don't understand. Me and Imrlybord are some of the most veteran editors here, we've had accounts since December 2008. Also, we've made many edits as IPs beforehand. So I don't understand why Imrlybord and I aren't put at the front of the queue. If I asked you the question, "who is the bigger help to the wiki", I don't see how most of you would say Saint. /facepalm.      10:28, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page -- a good editor does not necessarily make a good admin. You might have the qualities of a good -- if not great -- editor. Many might not consider you for bureaucrat because of other traits that are undesirable for someone going for a higher position. Being a bureaucrat isn't about seniority; there's no "queue" to become a bureaucrat. I'm surprised you can't understand why people prefer Saint over you. The reasons are listed above. --Scottie theNerd 11:46, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Cod4, I'm disappointed that you would say such things. Our edit counts and veteran statuses do not qualify us to be bureaucrats. I did not nominate Saint because he is a bigger help to the wiki than other sysops. To be frank, he is not. However, he has the best combination of personality traits to execute the office when compared to other current sysops. Imrlybord7 23:45, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - "You might" and "good -- if not great -- editor" don't really appeal to me, I've always thought I've been a pretty damn great editor if you don't mind me saying. I've helped this wiki out quite a bit more than most, Saint included. My other "traits" you speak of have not damaged the integrity of this wiki in any way. I treat people as they deserve to be treated. If that means I am overly mean to some people, unfortunately so be it. A 3 month block should teach that vandal a lesson. The way he vandalized my talk page suggested to be he'd need a pretty lengthy ban for him to learn his lesson. I think I perform my job here pretty well. I've handled the PGB situation without much drama, and it seems he has learnt his lesson after the block I gave him. I don't believe in sympathy for vandals, if they wanted sympathy they wouldn't have vandalized in the first place. I'm always open to apologies though, I'm willing to forgive someone if they realize what they've done was stupid and unnecessary. In case you don't realize I am only trying to help out.      22:22, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

You considering yourself to be "more worthy of becoming a bureaucrat" doesn't appeal to me. I'm sorry for not giving due acknowledgement to your superior skill, knowledge and experience; all of which you seem to be more capable of describing than I can. --Scottie theNerd 06:24, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment PGB definitely didn't learn his lesson. In fact, it seemed you took his side when he fought the admins and blamed us for unrightfully blocking him. He's currently blocked for some other harrassment thing. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 03:04, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Saint is not the oldest user out there, nor does he have the most edits. However, Saint has the best people skills of any admin on the wiki, and is always ready to help. He has helped me and many others, most of said people on frequent occasions, so you, Saint, are deserving of the position of Bureaucrat because of your charisma, time devoted to the wiki, and general helpfulness. -- CoD addict (talk · edits) 03:25, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment I take that in offense! ;) File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 20:16, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I do take that in offense, :/      22:29, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support = Per all. I just noticed we had many requests. I would have voted earlier if I had known. E.TALE^Barracks 23:00, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

RfB successful; Saint with be granted bureaucratic powers in a moment. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 21:24, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Callofduty4 (2)

Callofduty4^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I nominate COD4 as a bureaucrat because he helps a lot out and is a great user too. He is a great administrator, does a lot of work and is a big help to the wiki. He should really deserve these powers. DevilWarrior11220:00, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support	3
Neutral	3
Oppose	3

Support - As nominator. DevilWarrior11220:00, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - This has been brought up before, and has been put down because Callofduty4 lacks the aloofness of a bureaucrat or something like that -- EightOhEightT C E 20:25, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - He's going to become a 'crat in November. Ask Chia about it. DrRichtofen (Talk)

Comment - With all due respect, Doc, Chia doesn't decide that. -- EightOhEightT C E 20:25, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Well, why dosen't he become one earlier? I'll talk to Chia about it. DevilWarrior11220:23, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Wait a second, isn't he an admin already? Smuff 20:55, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Smuff, this is to be a Beauracrat. Slowrider7 20:57, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- No the only reason Callofduty4 can block people is because he's got funk. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Support- He's neen a pal, has around 1250 mainspace edits and has been very kind to a lot of people. I'm going to call him a mirror, if you're nice and do good stuff, he's nice. If you're a selfish, asshole vandal, he'll act selfish and be an ass to you, cause you deserve it. If you disagree with me you must now be paying much attention, Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Oppose That actually needs a little attention. Acting like an ass to asses might seem okay, but it's important to create a standard. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 00:03, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment-Poketape showing vandals respect should be worth a block. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Neutral - He's competent and practical, which is halfway there. However, bureaucrats shouldn't need to act like asses to anybody, and I'm concerned that having this "mirror" attitude will be more detrimental to the community than worthwhile. --Scottie theNerd 04:18, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Firstly, thanks a lot for the nomination, Devilwarrior, it means a lot to me. Secondly, when have I been an "ass"? I warn vandals and I block them. How is that being an ass? If me being an "ass" relates to the message I left you on your talk page, then I don't know what to say, what you guys did was completely unacceptable by any means.      09:44, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you warn and block vandals, but you also laugh at them. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 10:16, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Why do you have to cherry pick one bad case out of many good cases? He deserved that anyway. Yes, it was a babyish thing to do but still, he deserved it.      21:26, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

It was the first thing I saw, and it doesn't even matter if someone deserved it. It's part of an administrator's job to be both above the vandals and trolls and to be a good example for behavior other users should have on the site. There's not that big of a leap from doing what you did to an IP to doing that to another registered user, which is most definitely, at that point, unacceptable. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 04:44, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It pains me to do this, but after becoming an admin I now understand where Chia was coming from. A 'crat should basically be perfect. You are an excellent sysop and editor, and someone who I hope considers me a friend, but I really don't think any sysops besides Saint and maybe WYK are worthy of cratship at the moment. /hopes you aren't mad at me Imrlybord7 22:09, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Chiafriend you say that if I did what I did to a registered user it would be totally unacceptable. Therefore, you're going right against the fabled "All editors are equal" policy. TBH that policy is bollocks, it basically saying the average user has the same authority over this site as the big bureaucrat, which is rubbish. I don't understand why you're so negative when it comes to me. Imrlybord, how can you say that bureaucrats have to be perfect. Don't you remember what happened with BigM? If it pained you to write what you did then you shouldn't have done it. What you guys are saying is total bullshit in my eyes.      10:28, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

COD:AEAE does not state that all users have the same authority. The policy states that all users are equally important and, by extension, deserve the same treatment regardless of whether they are unregistered, regular or admin. It is the backbone of any wiki, regardless of whether or not it actually has it as a policy. Any wiki that does not treat users equally is one that is dominated by power-hungry individuals who want to pump up their online egos. What you did to that anon was as unacceptable, just as it would be unacceptable to do it to a registered user. That you think the policy is bollocks, and your low consideration of other people's opinions, does not give me faith in your capacity to be an admin, let alone be promoted to Bureaucrat. --Scottie theNerd 11:38, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above comments. --Scottie theNerd 11:38, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It "pained me" because I like you. BigM didn't deserve to be a crat after what he did, so he lost his privileges. Imrlybord7 23:07, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - It's not my place to vote for crats, I don't know anything about them. Btw, who's BigM? Smuff 14:38, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - BigM is the user Rs4life07, who is an experienced user on the wiki. DevilWarrior11214:57, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I never said all editors should not be equal. I called the AEAE policy "bollocks" because it gives the impression that your average IP has the same authority as a bureaucrat. Also, read the blocking policy. Although I do not use it, at several points it differentiates blocks for registered and unregistered users. So really that's another policy that's bollocks. I have a low consideration of people's opinions which make no sense or I do not agree with. Although I admit that isn't neutral at all, that's unfortunately how I work. I have a perfect capacity to be an admin. I've been one for 4-5 months now, and if I did not have the capacity to be one it wouldn't have worked out for me. Fortunately, I think I'm a pretty good admin. Unfortunately you beg to differ.      22:22, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

If the policy is bollocks, it needs to be revisited and rewritten. If admins aren't following their own policies, then there's no limit to what an admin can or can't do; all policies, rules and guidelines will be for nothing and users will have no basis on which to be bold and edit freely. I've got faith in your administrative intuition, but the sooner these instincts reach consensus and become codified as policy, the more efficiently the wiki will run. If all the admins follow their own rules, there'd be no point in having rules, and thus no point in having admins.

In regards to AEAE implying what you say, I honestly can't see how one can interpret it as being a symbol of equal authority. But again, if it's something you dislike (and there are many policies that I dislike), they should be prioritised as urgent changes to be agreed upon by sysops and crats and implemented as soon as possible instead of festering in the War Room. I can understand your deviation from policy, but I cannot see how you can be a good sysop or bureaucrat if you are overtly biased. People will come to you with grievances, complaints and requests for arbitration. Would you dismiss the side you don't agree with? --Scottie theNerd 06:19, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think anyone is disputing your capabilities as a sysop. But being a sysop is already a very high position. I would be perfectly content to never become a 'crat, and every other sysop should feel the same way. Cratship is not the natural culmination of sysopship. It is a position that should only be afforded to the most responsible, behaved, and neutral sysops. You are already part of what I consider to be a pretty illustrious group of users. What is there to be unsatisfied about? Imrlybord7 23:42, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Callofduty4 has contributed very well to the wiki and has the required edits, but I agree that it is important to create a standard. Lt. Dunn File:1stlt1.jpg 17:41, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Welcomed me into this wiki. Has alot of edits and is kind. We should focus on the positive more then the negative.Would be good Crat. Cpt.Z 02:44, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Welcoming people isn't really that big of a trait, it's easy and alot of people do it, theres several buttons dedicated to that. Smuff 19:04, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

No consensus. Callofduty4 will not be given bureaucratic rights at this time. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 21:24, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Cod1 (5)

Cod1^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Hi there everybody. Well it's me again. I believe it is the right time to try again. If I become an admin, I promise to work with everybody. I promise to use my tools to good measure, and with great professionalism.

I have the determination to make this wiki an even better place for CoD info. I promise to be professional with my tools, and act like any other user. I know being an administrator does not make you any more important than anyone else. I feel I am pretty well known on this wiki, I have a pretty mixed reputation, and over 2100 edits.

So please have your say. Thanks a lot, General Cod1 ^Talk 00:33, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support	1
Neutral	6
Oppose	1

Support - Cod1 has the required mainspace edits and would be a good admin. Lt. Dunn File:1stlt1.jpg 00:42, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Nuetral- It pains me to do this. But there are three main reasons why I must do this. 1) There's gonna be a hell load of admins coming in. I think it would be better if you and I ran together in April 2)You're not that well known and haven't been that active lately 3)You're not that active in community disscussions. I wanna support but I just can't see it . You deserve this, it is a very tough decision, but I'm going for nuetral, but you'll most likely get passed. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Comment Is there really any reason to run at the same time? If anything wouldn't that just lessen your chances? File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 03:56, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral leaning towards Support - Sorry about this dude, but I've never seen you until this point, however, you do look like a good editor, you do have a nice edit count and if you get more votes from some admins or high profile users (808 and Doc for eg.) I'll happily change it to a yes. Also, don't worry, not having a rep isn't that bad a thing, just get some support ok? Smuff 01:07, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I still don't think you're up to adminship. At least you took a long time this time. Make sure you remember to include what number try this is. To me it seems like you just took longer so people would forget about you (Which seems to have worked). File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 03:56, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - PGB's right, you haven't been that active or partaking in community discussions lately. You have a good edit count which always helps. Become more involved in the community and I will support you. DrRichtofen (Talk)

Neutral - If you became more active I'd support you. You have everything an admin needs except the activity.      09:44, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - More activity needed. I'll support you if you keep doing what everyone's telling you to do. DevilWarrior11212:41, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral leaning towards support - Per all. Imrlybord7 20:49, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - You've definitely improved a lot since your last RFA, but I'm concerned that it might be a bit early still. Give it another go in another month or so and I'll be happy to give you my full support.--WouldYouKindly 01:03, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

No consensus. Cod1 will not be given administrator rights at this time. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 21:24, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Callofduty4 (3)

Callofduty4^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Having been on this wiki since December '08, I am one of the most veterened editors on this great wiki to have not achieved bureaucrat status. I believe that I am capable of bureaucrat status just as much as SaintofLosAngelesXD(m) is, if not more so. I know that I have opened this request very soon after the last was closed, but I have been (in my own eyes, at least), an invaluable member of the community, performing routine anti-vandal work, article editing and cleanup and participation in community discussions. I feel that while I do admittedly have my bad points, the good I have done for this wiki far overwhelms the "bad". I am willing to help, as you can probably see, after I offered my skills to the Battlefield Wiki. On that subject, my tour of duty there was cut short due to numerous flame wars which broke out, one concerning the now infamous user, Peter Griffen Boy, after I previously blocked him, he still went on to cause trouble. I cut my visit to the Battlefield Wiki short to maintain my presence on this wiki, after all this is what I consider "my home wiki". This leads me onto my next point, and probably the most important point - influence. With bureaucrat status, I will be able to quickly extinguish flame wars which break out, which I am sorry to say are too frequent on this wiki, with the extra influence of being a bureaucrat. While this may sound power hungry, I will not use the added influence to gain my way in any argument, ever. It must be admitted that if a bureaucrat intervenes, the belligerents are more likely to conform and stop arguing.

So, with these points stated, please have your say. Thank you very much.

Support	1
Neutral	0
Oppose	4

Oppose - It is not good form to open another RFA immediately after the previous one has closed. Your previous RFA failed and starting another one immediately after isn't going to change my mind. In addition, previous comments you made in your RFA and others have shown me that you do not respect the free and open nature of the wiki. I'm content that your pragmatism as an admin, but I do not think you come across as a bureaucrat I can trust to discuss issues with, nor do I foresee a positive relationship with other admins due to your displays of arrogance and elitism. I think you are a valuable member of the admin team and, if you had bureaucrat tools you would get a lot done for the wiki. I don't particularly care about who is more "worthy" to become a bureaucrat, rather who should or shouldn't be. Unfortunately, I consider you to be in the latter category. I probably stand alone in my opinion, but it's here. --Scottie theNerd 04:44, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It's bad form to submit another one so soon, regardless of your personal feelings. It is also... disconcerting... that you would expect the community's opinion to change in such a short time. As I have said, you are a great asset to this wiki and an excellent sysop, but I don't see a reason to make you a bureaucrat. Being worthy of bureaucrat status is much more about user interactions than anything. I think I summed it up perfectly with those two quotes that I posted on your talk page a while back. Seriously, reread them a few times. Am I saying that you should never be one? Of course not. I definitely think you are capable of the reform necessary to become one eventually. But at the moment, no. Also, I find that sysop powers are more than enough to end flame wars. Admittedly, I sometimes allow them to go on if I am one of the belligerents, but as a human I reserve the right to indulge once in a while. For that very reason I wouldn't even consider accepting a nomination for cratship at the moment, and probably not even in the near future. But yeah, sysop powers are plenty for peacekeeping purposes. Imrlybord7 05:22, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I do respect the open and free nature of the wiki. As I said before, I think the all editors are equal policy can be easily misinterpreted. Some people do not like the idea of IP editors but I endorse the idea, as occasionally an IP editor comes along who makes a great edit. That good edit far outweighs the amount of easily undone vandalism by IP editors. I do agree that I can be arrogant, but in no way do I believe I am the nicest admin out there, but conversely in no way do I believe I am the worst admin out there. I've shown the capacity to work with other admins, and I'll continue working with them just fine. The reason I submitted another RFB so soon is because my last one wasn't even submitted by me, I was nominated by another user, therefore I didn't get to illustrate my points. On a different note, I was slightly concerned when Saint was made a bureaucrat - he's not anywhere near as a active as other admins, not just necessarily me.      10:56, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly concerned that you want to be made a bureaucrat so eagerly. It doesn't matter who nominates you for an RFB; a failed request holds the same weight regardless. You had ample opportunity to present yourself: nothing stopped you from posting comments during your RFB and those comments were full of praise for yourself and your seniority above others. It wasn't that long ago that you said you considered yourself worthier to become a bureaucrat that certain others. It's easy to put a spin on your words overnight, but it'll take more time to convince me that you're honest and legitimate in the manner in which you conduct daily activity.

It's been barely a day since the RFB closed and the sentiments that were expressed in your previous one will not be different here. Your lack of patience doesn't convince me that you'll be suitable for a higher position. As I said above, I'm quite content with your responsibility and handling of your Sysop position at the moment. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and believing that you want to be a bureaucrat for the betterment of the wiki, but your stance on issues such as policy and your superiority complex does not give me that confidence. You don't need to be a bureaucrat to stop conflicts, and I do not think your influence is the kind a bureaucrat should have. --Scottie theNerd 12:25, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - In my opinion, I think that Callofduty4 has the awareness to become a bureaucrat because he is a great help to the wiki. When he became an administrator, he treated the position very well and respectful. He can do the same with this job. He has had a lot of flame wars with Peter Griffen Boy, which everyone else thinks he should be banned for a while now. He shouldn't be one just yet but in a while he should. He really deserves this position. Also, a while back, I voted for COD4 to become a bureaucrat and it had some support, some neutral and some oppose, particulary Imrlybord and Scottie. I am finally understanding everything because I'm becoming an experienced user but this should be really good for him. DevilWarrior11211:28, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, but opening a new RFA just after Chia archives it is just silly, and actually saying you're better than another editor in your actual RFA is just immature. You're a good editor, and a very good sysop, but if you keep trying to do this you're going to lose the respect of the wiki. Isn't being a sysop good enough? Even Imrlybord is saying that. This RFA is just going to get opposition from alot of people, sorry. Next time try waiting a week or two after this one finishes. The reason Saint was made a crat was because, as fun as it is doing it, he doesn't mock those who aren't an asset to the wiki. Sysops can ban just as easily, and Sysops have just as much respect. You'll resent me for this with my low edit count like, and you're a good editor, one I'd happily admit that too, but activity doesn't mean quality, sorry. Smuff 12:10, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Smuff, You mentioned Chiafriend12 specifically. It doesn't matter who closes an RFA. An average user could have closed it with a good enough reason and I would have accepted it. Also, I agree being sysop is good, but I'd like to go that bit further and achieve bureaucrat status. Also, you stated that Saint doesn't mock people who are an asset to the wiki. I don't know when I have mocked a perfectly good user, unless you're now calling vandals an asset to the wiki. Also, stating a fact is not immature. I'm sorry, but the only good statement you made was "Isn't being a sysop good enough", and it seems that you are only opposing me because I opened this RFB to soon. Scottie, you say my lack of patience does not convince you of me achieving a higher position, but I can equally say that your poor judgement, showing from how you see me, does not convince me of you ever achieving a higher position. I do not have a superiority complex, I do not believe I am superior to anyone in any way, but I do believe I am more worthy and deserving of bureaucrat-ship than others. Back to Smuff, you stated that I have been in many flame wars with PGB. I have never been involved in one, ever. I honestly cannot appreciate anything you said because it makes no sense. The only time I was involved was when I intervened and took action against PGB. Also, if you look at the User:JouninOfDespair mini-flame war then you will see that I pretty much fixed everything by giving him a chance to apologize. So if that does not display respect for editors, even those who cause trouble, I don't know what does.      13:16, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

But it does matter who closed it, because the position that person holds is the same position you want. An average user does not have the authority to close an RfA. Only a bureaucrat can close an RfA, and Chiafriend was, at the time, the only active bureaucrat; thus Smuff's specific reference to Chia holds no connotation.

And while you're confident in saying that you don't display disrespect for other editors, it seems you're easily comfortable with the notion of accusing me of "poor judgement". I'm sorry, but if you're differentiating between "more worthy and deserving" and not considering yourself to be "better", then you'll have to put up with my "poor judgement".

Being a bureaucrat is not an achievement and should not be treated as such. If that's all you want to become a bureaucrat for, I do question your motives. I would keep this discussion impersonal, but if you want to single me out and discredit my opinion, then we'll do it this way. --Scottie theNerd 13:31, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

I picked you out specifically because you seem to be the biggest threat. You seem, to me at least, to have poor judgement because you doubt my potential. I do not want to become a bureaucrat for the sake of it, I would like to become a bureaucrat for the added influence that comes with it. I've made clear that I plan to use that influence (assuming I become a bureaucrat) for good and as you say the betterment of the wiki, and I promise to never use it to get my own way in anything. I did not plan for you to take offence in what I said about your judgement, I hold nothing against you for what you think of me, and as future bureaucrat material I know it is necessary to respect people's views, assuming they make sense (/cough Smuff /cough). I respect your views, Scottie, and I'm happy that your taking such a great interest in my RFB. We can't let this debate become personal.      13:46, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry about the not making sence there. You are crat material, but you just need to wait a wee bit longer, opening a new RFA immediatly after doesn't make much sence. Also, I never referenced PGB. But being a beaurocrat for influence is bad, you become a beaurocrat for the health of the wiki. Becoming one would require such responsiblity and neutrality, even towards vandals, Chia pointed that out in your previous RFA. I have never seen Chia or Saint laugh at anyone, even an unregestered vandal. I'm not holding that against you, but it is a fair point. Smuff 14:35, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Question - (Well, they do it on other wikis, so why not here?) Why is it that you believe another bureaucrat is necessary? Especially since Saint was recently given 'crat powers and your RfB also recently closed. I'm only curious and will consider voting after your response. Thanks. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 16:38, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I just think it's wrong to refer to another user's success and say that you deserve it more. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 18:40, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Poketape, it's true though. Bovell, I believe another bureaucrat is necessary because it is a good idea to have at least 2 active bureaucrats - Chiafriend isn't consistently active. I believe that the presence of 2 bureaucrats will make users think twice about starting something, because as I've said a lot of influence comes with bureaucrat-ship. Also, I believe in a ratio of admins to bureaucrats, but that's a bit OCD and not a very important reason.      22:02, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Yes, but if you work on the bias that you are much more active, then I think say... Darkman 4 would be a much better candidate, he has ALOT more edits, and is also extremely active aswell. I'm not saying you would be bad at it, I'm just saying you can't go by that argument, it doesn't work if you go into enough depth. Also, like I said before, per Poketape. Two crats is good enough for time being, we have an Admin:Crat Ratio of 5.5:1, that's enough. However in time, when more sysops come along, maybe the need for a 3rd shall arise. Smuff 17:36, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Smuff, Darkman 4 was only semi-active for about 1 -2 months. He only recently became active again. He may have more edits than me but most people go with the saying "Quality, not Quantity". Also, if you were aware of the 2 very successful requests on this page you would realize that the need for a 3rd bureaucrat will arise very shortly.      17:53, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Most of my edits come from me adding a shitload of materials, including almost all of the weapon pics, the weapon infobox, basic stats for all the weapons, and walkthroughs for the CoD1 and 2 levels. Its not like I just shitposted on blogs or anything. If anything, I was one of the people that made this wiki go from crap to pretty much the main source of all CoD stuff. Darkman 4 20:09, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - I'll reopen one in a few weeks.      20:49, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Juan Jose Rodriguez

Juan Jose Rodriguez^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I nominate Rodriguez as admin because he's near 2,000 overall edits, his user page is wonderful and he is a respected user. DevilWarrior11208:39, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support	11
Neutral	2
Oppose	0

Support - As nominator. DevilWarrior11208:42, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I do have to admit, he is one of the best editors on this wiki & he is very friendly and helpful, but his edits most of the time are very minor, usually one or two letter changes. While Im going to admit that he is a major help to the Wiki, he just needs to put more volume in his edits. Slowrider7 12:24, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, Leaning towards Support - I'd love to make you an admin, JJR, but like Imrlybord said, you need to be more active in community discussions. I haven't really seen that in the past few days plus like Slowrider said, your edits are rather minor. Cpl. Wilding 12:28, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - First of all, I'd like to thank DevilWarrior112 for the request. I'd also like to say that I agree with Bord and I have to be more active in community discussions. As of right now, here are the goals I'd like to uncover:

1) Finding out how to be more active in community discussions (How about IRC meetings? No-one's ever on those. I just want to mainly know WHAT to participate in.)

2) Possibly becoming a rollback.

I'd like to say that I will take all votes for, neutral or against me in stride and I WILL try to improve. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez ^{Reportin' for duty.} 13:16, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - In any of my discussions with him he has demonstrated an excellent attitude, and he is obviously a great editor. I would gladly trust him to be a sysop. However, he does need to get a bit more involved in the community (which he is free to do during and after his RFA, regardless of the outcome). Imrlybord7 16:37, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to bother with IRC. Things like reporting vandals, voting, and just getting chummy with other users are some of the best and easiest ways to go about getting involved with the community. And you already deserve rollback, so you might as well just ask Chia for it already. Imrlybord7 16:55, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Imrlybord7 (What? I haven't said that in a while and there is nothing else to say.) File:Richtofen.jpg Doc. Richtofen 17:19, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You're a good editor, and go around and look after the wiki well, so you've got my support. Smuff 20:03, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Jose is a very friendly, mature, and dedicated user, although I do agree with others that you should get a tad more involved in the community. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 00:30, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thank you, everyone, for the comments. Saints, I completley agree and I will try harder to get more active in community discussion. Thank you for the support, and thank you to Slowrider and Cpl. Wilding for the advice - I find it very helpful. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez ^{Reportin' for duty.} 00:33, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, Leaning towards Support-A great user with lot's of main space edits. But lacks community presence. --Lt. Col. Gen.Cain^{T C E} 00:37, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Support Upon reviewing you as a user i realized the error of my ways and so I now support you. JJR has over 2100 edit's now, he always makes quality edits and is devoted to the wiki. Proof of that is if you look at his user page, he puts so much effort and work into every thing he does. --Lt. Col. Gen.Cain^{T C E} 23:29, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Saint. Lt. Dunn File:1stlt1.jpg 13:00, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - JJR is fine admin material. I see no problems in the future. He is well mannered and very well written.      22:25, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Wait, this hasn't already happened? PER ALL!--WouldYouKindly 01:04, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - JJR is constantly on the recent edits page, and has great grammar and writing skills. This wiki may have 3 new admins and a 'crat soon... -- CoD addict (talk · edits) 01:06, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Why is JJR not an admin yet, right now its 10|2|0 so why not if someone were to oppose him it already would be done —Unsigned comment was added by Gen.Cain

Support - Per WYK. Strong and prolific editor. IcepacKs 01:50, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

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

RfA successful; Rodriguez is now an admin. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 08:48, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Cpl. Dunn

Cpl. Dunn^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

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 File:1stlt1.jpg 03:06, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support	1
Neutral	4
Oppose	3

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. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 23:50, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What happened to trying next month, Dunn? DevilWarrior11211:10, 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 File:1stlt1.jpg 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. File:GenCain.jpg^{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. File:GenCain.jpg^{T 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 File:1stlt1.jpg 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. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 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 File:1stlt1.jpg 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. File:Richtofen.jpg 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. IcepacKs 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. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 20:05, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RfA unsuccessful; Cpl. Dunn will not be given administrator rights as of yet. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 02:47, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Griever0311

Griever0311^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

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. File:Lightsaber.jpg"Master Kenobi 20:22, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support	24
Neutral	1
Oppose	1

Support - as nominator. File:Lightsaber.jpg"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. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 20:43, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Switch to neutral I see what everybody's saying. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^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. File:Richtofen.jpg Doc. Richtofen 21:12, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - One of the best editors out there. Keep it up, Griever - Semper Fi! -- CoD addict (talk · edits)

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

Support - Per WYK. Lt. Dunn File:1stlt1.jpg 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. User:Codfan

Support - Per John Boy. I mean, uh, WYK. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 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. File:Lightsaber.jpg"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 --File:GenCain.jpg^{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. File:Lightsaber.jpg"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. IcepacKs 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. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

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..... :) -- CoD addict (talk · edits)

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. File:Lightsaber.jpg"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. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 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. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 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)

Strong Support - Per all, and the Blog-Post thingy showing he can handle problems easily. W567123daniel 21:04, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- No, he changed the whole idea of a blog into a anti-PGB blog. That's immature and rude, not to mention mean. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Comment - No he didn't. I'm not sure but I think that constitutes a personal attack? Anyway he did no such thing, and considering you just said that you've insulted the judgement of every single wikian that's voted in this RfA, even Poketape (who's still neutral) thinks he's a great editor. I think Griever's ready, and that there is just cause to close this early, it's 22-1-1 I don't think he's getting shot down. File:Lightsaber.jpg"Master Kenobi^{You have my thanks.Good editing.} 21:16, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- Kenobi you're new, so I'll show you. Look at my 1st admin attempt, one admin got mad, and they all started banging on me. He changed the direction of the blog to insulting me, and that is purly just low-class and mean. It's his Rfa, so I'm allowed to say what I don't like about him. Smurf insulted me on Greiver's rfa, so that would be a better example of a personal attack, yet as long as people are slamming me, I guess anything is legal. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Changed to oppose - per this.      01:21, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how this off-wiki incident affects his RFA on CODwiki? I'm not sure on the context of this evidence. --Scottie theNerd 02:46, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What in the world? That's not how I said it, and if you know a thing about communism it actually isn't totalitarian, that's Stalinist Communism, and you're trusting PGB who's on his fourth block for a change to oppose for Griever0311? I'm sorry Callofduty4 you seem to show a lack of professional judgement right there. Darthkenobi0File:Lightsaber.jpg^{BlogTalkContributions} 01:25, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support -Griever's definitely a good editor. He's cool-headed, knowledgeable, and very helpful. I believe he'll make a great admin. Hk37 Need help? Contact me here! 03:05, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Scottie, if your going to attack every single fucking thing I do then I don't want to have any communication with you. It was not an off-wiki incident, that incident PGB told me about happened right here, on our wiki, our soil. Also, Darthkenobi, W-T-F are you talking about?      11:27, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Without any context, I assumed that the BFwiki link was a off-wiki incident; hence why I asked for clarification. There's no reason to take a personal offence on my inquiry. --Scottie theNerd 13:40, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support- If anyone deserves it, it's Griever.Need Help? Ask me! 13:47, March 28, 2010 (UTC) —Unsigned comment was added by Dolten

Changed back to support -      14:14, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RFA successful - I have notified Saint, who should grant Griever admin rights shortly...      14:19, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Moozipan Cheese

Moozipan Cheese^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I nomiante Cheese for admin. He is a great user who is respected, mature and kind. His "100 Things We Hate About" series has amazed the wiki. He credited many users in his most recent animation. He connects great with the community and is a friendly user. I think he deserves to be an admin. DevilWarrior11214:02, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support	1
Neutral	3
Oppose	6

Support - As nomiantor. DevilWarrior11214:02, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Not enough reason provided in nomination. Making an off-wiki satirical video and crediting contributors is not a sign that someone should become an admin. I would like more comprehensive information regarding the candidate, the nature of his contributions and evidence of positive working relationships with other users. --Scottie theNerd 13:27, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Don't take this personally, DevilWarrior, but we really should take nominations seriously. We can't just put up a random, friendly user and assume that we're all going to vote positive. I'd rather see the nomination include evidence of "connection" with the community and admin-appropriate qualities rather than having to sift through contribution histories just to figure out who he is. Many people might know Moozipan Cheese, but that's a name I haven't seen in wiki-related discussions. --Scottie theNerd 14:04, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - While Cheese is a nice guy, he hasn't really been seen contributing that much recently. That may be because of his animations, but that matters not. And while his videos credited the wiki and were made brilliantly and definately deserve recognition, it does not make him worthy of adminship. I never see much of the Cheese on this wiki nowadays. We're not even sure he wants them yet. —Unsigned comment was added by Doc.Richtofen

Oppose - Sorry, but as nice as this guy is, I have never seem this guy make a single edit. Also, although he is a lovely person, I'm not sure he is that active to begin with. Per Doc. Smuff 22:46, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Doc. You are a nice guy but I haven't seen you contribute in a while. Lt. Dunn (Talk) 22:49, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Pending Leaning Towards Oppose - He has about half the edits of most admins, barely more than myself. I've also never even heard of the guy, this meaning that he isn't very involved in the community. If there's a good enough of a reason he should be an admin I might change my vote, until then it's still pending. Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 22:59, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm not even sure if Moozipan is interested in being an admin. There's little point in continuing the RfA if he doesn't accept the nomination. --Scottie theNerd 05:22, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't accepted his nomination so I'm with Scottie.      10:33, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Smuff. Slowrider7 11:10, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - He is pretty much inactive on the wiki. Why would you even nominate him? Imrlybord7 18:07, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We have no current need for new sysops, and he is not particularly more suited to the job than other users. Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 06:29, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Nominee has not accepted the nomination; no admin qualities shown. --Scottie theNerd 06:35, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think you should make such a sweeping statement. Moozipan is friendly, professional, and a good editor. If he was active, he would probably be a serious contender for an admin position. Imrlybord7 07:28, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

If he was active. He's not active, which means he's not appropriate for the position. I've outlined my reasons in my neutral vote above, and after several days of no response to this RfA, it confirms to me that Moozipan is not an appropriate candidate. While he may be a friendly and good editor, you know as well as I do that being an admin is more than being a good editor. We've been, in my opinion, a bit lax on looking at the typical qualities an admin should have and instead have been promoting people who are generally friendly and professional. However, I would expect an admin to be familiar with wiki policies, take an active role in community discussions and concerns regarding the wiki as a whole, and in turn demonstrate a capacity to deal with user-related problems. I have not see much of these traits from Moozipan, and while it might be unfair to make a sweeping statement, it's equally redundant to say that he's a serious contender if he's not active. In the end though, unless Moozipan accepts this RfA within the next day or so, we should close this as he has not accepted the nomination and it would be pointless to continue the debate and voting. --Scottie theNerd 08:08, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Scottie hold it there. Just because he isn't that active doesn't mean you can carpet bomb his whole RFA. Sure, we're in agreement that this was a bad nomination (No offence to him) and that it is highly unlikely that this would go through, but for all we know he could just be on a really long holiday without his iPhone. He is a very good editor, and seems to have been quite active in the community. While I'm staying on oppose, if he was active he would be a very good candidate. Also, good luck closing it, because only 'crats can do that. Smuff 11:28, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While I am humbled to be considered for adminship, I decline. There are a lot of users on here who edit a lot more than me, and deserve it a lot more. I've never had much of an interest in becoming an administrator here, and if I did, I'd rather be considered for one because of my contributions to this site, rather than my animation. I like to think I edit a fair amount on here, and I also like to think I'm quite a friendly and laid-back person, but I don't get involved in discussions on talk pages that much, and I'm not incredibly dedicated to editing all the time. Due to the amount of time I had to put into making the animation, I've been (hopefully understandably) inactive on this site as I want to take a break from all things Call of Duty-related for a while. So, thanks for the nomination DevilWarrior112, but there are other users on here that are more suited for the task. Moozipan Cheese 20:42, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

RFA Closed - User has declined nomination. Imrlybord7 02:14, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

EightOhEight

I hereby nominate EightOhEight for the position of Bureaucrat on the Call of Duty Wiki. It has come to the attention of almost every active user that the Wiki will be needing a new bureaucrat pending the release of Call of Duty 7. EightOhEight has kept himself at an impersonal distance in every even until he has collected sufficient evidence to make his vote. His lack of bias in situations is absolutely necessary in a Bureaucrat. He has also shown great modesty in refusing to post an RfB, rather waiting until the Community (myself in this case) decided that he was worthy. While notifying him, his words "Me?/Oh god/Thanks/I'm scared" quite obviously display humility on his part.

EightOhEight is also extremely friendly to all, while maintaining a profession distance, and a well-articulated frankness. Myself and many others consider him a personal friend, and "a great guy". He is very widely respect on the wiki, and adheres to Policies and Manual on Style religiously. He also has a vast knowledge of Wiki Syntax or 'Markup'. Sincerely, Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount}

EightOhEight^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Support	2
Neutral	3
Oppose	4

Support - as nominator. Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 20:32, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Leaning Towards Support - Per Darth, but do we really need another 'crat? Callofduty4 will probably pass, and then we will have 3. Do we need 4? Lt. Dunn Talk 20:40, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Nominator File:Anim-ac-130 emblem.gifCommander W567123daniel^{Wanna Talk?|My Duty|Wassup?} 20:57, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - He has not been that long a sysop. Why is there any need for him to become a b'crat so soon? Plus, I feel there are other users more worthy of b'crat status at this time. File:Richtofen.jpg Doc. Richtofen 20:44, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I saw that one coming a mile away. -- ^{T C E} 20:45, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - read my change of vote on Cod4's RfB. I'm presenting EightOhEight as a better candidate as per my nomination. And you should name some of those better candidates, otherwise your entire argument is null. And people could you give me a second to save my comment without an editing conflict? XDDarthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 20:49, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet - Sorry, but your RfA was like a month ago...too soon. -- CoD addict (talk · edits)

Oppose - First of all, this is an RfB. Sorry Eight but you've been a sysop for not long and this is an early time to become a 'crat. DevilWarrior11221:53, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - this is going to sound a bit condescending but can we get some input from some Admins and not just people that would have reason to oppose this out of reflex? So far Cpl. Dunn has given actual reasoning for his vote, and has little motive to vote either way other than unbiased opinion. Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 20:57, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I would also like to point out that time of his election to Admin has little to do with his effectiveness as a Sysop or a Bureaucrat. EightOhEight's first RfA was very close, and his second was nearly unanimously support. He has almost no blemishes on his record. Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 21:02, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I see Callofduty4, Darkman4 and WouldYouKindly as the most worthy at this time. File:Richtofen.jpg Doc. Richtofen 21:18, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- while i respect 808 as a user and an admin, per doc he is very Green as an admin. And there are plenty of better candidates File:GenCain.jpg^{T C E B} 00:08, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - EightOhEight is one of my best friends on the wiki, but he lacks the patience and dedication that I would expect to see in a crat. Imrlybord7 02:12, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I'm wit teh Bord here. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 02:46, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

I reject my nomination and therefore close this RFB. Note that I have read everything posted here and it may or may not affect my judgement in the future. -- ^{T C E} 02:48, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

DevilWarrior112 (3)

DevilWarrior112^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

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.

Support	0
Neutral	5
Oppose	2

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. File:Richtofen.jpg Doc. Richtofen 13:58, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Scottie, I would consider you a very knowledgeable and intelligent editor. File:Richtofen.jpg 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. —Unsigned comment was added by Slowrider7

Neutral I think you'd make a good admin, and all the recent activity has shown that, but I still think you need time. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^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. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 20:05, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RfA unsuccessful - Devil won't get any powers this time around. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 17:37, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Imrlybord7

I would like to nominate Imrlybord7 for the position of bureaucrat. I feel that Imrlybord7 is the most active and helpful admins out there. He is constantly online and when he is he is either, editing articles, adding and reinforcing his opinion on blogs, or putting down his opinion on RFA's, RFB's, RFA's and UOTM, and thoses opinions tend to sway votes entirely. I feel that Imrlybord7 is not only one of the most inffluentail admins he is always there when a user needs help, Bord is also on of the nicest, he rarly gets into arguments and there are few people who dont like him. Imrlybord7 is also on the front lines when it comes to vandalism, blocking vandals and notifying wiki users when they may be crossing lines. Imrlybord7 is kind and nobal, and smart and he is an amazing contributor.

Support	1
Neutral	1
Oppose	4

Support- as a nominator --File:GenCain.jpg^{T C E B} 11:00, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning toward Support, but... - Can you people not just accept CoD4 as a 'crat? As brilliant and nice Bord is an editor and admin, and although he handled my little brother thing brilliantly (See my talk page) he has only been a sysop for a month or two. Smuff 11:11, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - He's one of the finest editors on the wiki, but it's way too soon since he became a Sysop. It's been just over a month and the situation doesn't require a rapid promotion. I feel that he still needs to settle into his role as an admin and continue to work with bigger wiki issues. He's said himself that he's content with being a Sysop, and I feel that he's better without the Bureaucrat title for now. --Scottie theNerd 11:24, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Bord is a fantastic editor and user on the wiki but he's been a Sysop for not long. He'll choose if he wants to continue or withdraw the nomination, Cain. DevilWarrior11213:20, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

'Comment Okay dokie File:GenCain.jpg^{T C E B} 13:02, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Scottie. It's what I said with EightOhEight, there's no need for him to be a crat so soon. File:Richtofen.jpg Doc. Richtofen 15:18, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - He has not accepted his nomination, he has not settled in to his admin position enough yet (but I am sure as hell he will), but the main reason I am opposing is because the nomination paragraph is littered with spelling mistakes, is poorly written, does not outline any benefits of him becoming a bureaucrat and it is obvious it was thought out and written in about 2 minutes. RfB nomination paragraphs should be extremely detailed, well written and outline the benefits of becoming a bureaucrat. I now have serious doubts about your vote on my RfB, Cain, because it seems you do not know what you are talking about.      15:32, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment-Ok a) he may not have accepted his nomination because he is not online. b) I feel otherwise, I think he is very used to being an admin c) I am a bad speller I fail to see how this affects Bord's ablility to be an admin. d) I was outlining why i think Bord would make a good 'crat File:GenCain.jpg^{T C E B} 15:35, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, it's barely been day since the nomination was put up, so expecting an immediate acceptance is a bit unrealistic. However, it's important to understand that the nomination is very important to securing positive support from other editors. A nomination that is poorly thought-out and poorly written is unlikely to be considered seriously, especially now that we're getting saturated with admins and RfAs. We're starting to be more picky about who wants to be admin and why they would be appropriate instead of going with a general "He's a nice guy, you all know him" nomination. You and I might know the candidate well enough, but is that enough for other editors? Do other editors know about the candidate's involvement in policymaking, or how the candidate deals with conflicts of interest? That's the sort of information that should be presented in nominations to secure the support that is needed.

To be personally honest, I do think that requests for adminship should be done only by the individual interested in the position to avoid situations like this, where the candidate might not want or even be aware of the nomination. --Scottie theNerd 15:52, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Ignore the last part of my vote and the parts about the spelling and grammar. Gen. Cain has explained all.      15:54, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

To clarify as well, my comment was not directed at Cain's nomination (which, by the way, is one of the better write-ups). I was trying to illustrate how a nomination can influence opinions. I would like to thank Cain for his thoughtful write-up, which I found to be a fair and accurate description of Imrlybord. --Scottie theNerd 16:01, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is an accurate description but he did not explain why it would be good to make 'Bord a bureaucrat.      16:03, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

RFA Closed - I accept but withdraw the nomination, in that order. I completely understand that it is too soon for me to go from sysop to 'crat. I would like to convey my deepest appreciation to Cain for the nomination and to all who provided their opinions. Hell, even the opposes were filled with nothing but kind words, and that is more than enough for me. Capt. Bord ^{T C E} 19:03, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Icepacks

Icepacks^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

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, IcepacKs 23:26, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support	14
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

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. File:Richtofen.jpg 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. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 00:56, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. —Unsigned comment was added by Cpl. Dunn 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. -- CoD addict (talk · edits)

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.File:Lightsaber.jpg"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 Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 20:05, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone else. - Braden 0.0 11:19, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone. Dolten Let's Talk

Comment - I think the vote is unanimous. CHIAAAAA! File:Richtofen.jpg Doc. Richtofen 19:42, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - RFAs don't get closed until they've been out for at least 14 days. And don't forget about Saint. Imrlybord7 23:41, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem.gifYour nuke is ready, turn the key! 04:59, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Agree with what everyone else is saying. Ukimies 13:13 April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per TheManOfIron. Cpt.Z 20:33, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

RFA Closed - Successful RFA - I have notified Saint who should grant Icepacks administrator rights shortly.      12:06, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

E.TALE

I, Cpl. Dunn, hereby nominate E.TALE for the positon of sysop. I feel he greatly deserves it and has done great work here. Lt. Dunn (Talk) 01:48, April 2, 2010 (UTC) P.S. This is NOT an April Fools joke. Lt. Dunn (Talk) 01:50, April 2, 2010 (UTC) E.TALE^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Support	2
Neutral	0
Oppose	7

Support - As nominator. Lt. Dunn (Talk) 01:48, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Great User, great Contributions W567123daniel 01:52, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - although he's made good edits, he needs more experience, and we really don't need any more admins at this time, Griever just got his powers. Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 02:09, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Neutral Leaning Oppose - I review him a bit, and he's got great edits, but the fact is that we've got plenty of Admins, until someone tells me why we need another I'm opposing. Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 03:52, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Good editor, but that isn't nearly enough to warrant adminship. I could list the other important aspects of an administrator, but I would just be repeating myself. Looking through old RFAs in the archives is always a good idea. Imrlybord7 03:55, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - From what I've seen, E.TALE is a helpful editor and most of his useful contributions have been fixing minor errors and adding wikilinks. However, I haven't really seen him around in larger wiki discussions, and the lack of involvement in policy discussion and writing is what's lacking in this RfA. Also, I'm generally opposed to RfAs that fail to provide evidence that the candidate suits the criteria. Saying that someone "deserves" and has done "great work" does not provide any grounds on which we can be critical. I'd expect that nominations be at least as detailed as Callofduty4's latest RfA. --Scottie theNerd 04:07, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Imrlybord7 & Scottie theNerd —Unsigned comment was added by Doc.Richtofen

Oppose - Looking through past archives of admins always helps what is the next step to help you become an admin and known to the community. We have had many admins this year including Juan, Griever, Richtofen, Eight and Bord. You will get there but you just need to wait for a little while more. DevilWarrior11221:47, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Change to full Oppose - per my comments above. I don't see him as an admin. Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 20:51, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Shows no initiative in becoming involved with the administrative process. Get actively involved first, then get re-nominated. Ajraddatz _Talk 02:33, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Not yet - I think you'd make a great Admin, but I agree with Command Devil warrior 122, you could wait a little while longer... --Braden 0.0 23:58, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

RFA Closed E.TALE ^Barracks Headquarters 21:23, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Darkman 4

Hello. I figured it's time to finally make a request to be bureaucrat.

I am one of the most respected users on the wiki; admins such as Bord usually defer to me on difficult problems, showing that I am viewed as a senior editor on the wiki.

I am the second oldest editor that is still active, join-date wise (I joined July 2008). Some of my major contributions include the pictures seen on almost all of the weapon pages, the weapon infobox and the initial info for the CoD1-4 weapons, and the weapon navboxes for each game. I also added the walkthorughs for the CoD1 and 2 SP levels.

I've generally tried to be nice and helping whenever I can, such as helping new users. When I ban someone, I try to give them ample warning unless its obviously vandalism. As of late, I've been deleting material, such as blog posts, that might start flamewars against users who have some animosity between them.

I don't need Bureaucrat status; I feel that being Bureaucrat would merely solidify my position as a senior editor. I would be happy to continue serving as an admin on this wiki if the users decided that I shouldn't be a Bureaucrat.

As an admin for over a year, I believe that I am capable of being an effective Bureaucrat. Darkman 4 05:58, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support	19
Neutral	5
Oppose	0

Pending leaning towards support - I really haven't been around long enough to be sure but he was the first to send me a notice of my being able to vote like right now. Also he seemed to be the only one who noticed.File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem.gifYour nuke is ready, turn the key! 06:11, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - You've got valid points, and you're a great admin, however I haven't gotten enough of a feel for what kind of a person you are yet. At the time that I have I will give a definite vote. Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 06:28, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Da! Kenobi agrees!! File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem.gifYour nuke is ready, turn the key! 06:31, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Support - nice guy, per RfB. Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 06:53, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He's been a great sysop since I was still an anon. I'm surprised he wasn't nominated sooner (by himself or otherwise). Imrlybord7 07:23, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I looked at his old blogs and there were a lot of swears and whatnot. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem.gifYour nuke is ready, turn the key! 07:25, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry, but that has got to be the stupidest reason to oppose an RfB that I have ever seen. Imrlybord7 07:27, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Swearing hasn't been considered a problem in any of the requests I've seen. Darkman 4 07:28, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - the only time I swore in a blog was in my first one (which, incidentally, was the first blog posted on our wiki). It was supposed to be a joke. Darkman 4 07:32, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Wow, I didn't know you were running, so I just posted about the need for a triumvirate! lol! I guess we now need a four-umvirate? Ha! In all seriousness, however, you are a very good editor, helper, and disciplinarian. Furthermore, you have become more active over the past few weeks! You used to only be semi-active. Like Bord, I remember seeing Darkman 4's signature even from when I was an IP editor. -- CoD addict (talk · edits) 00:28, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Sorry if I'm just clueless - but you always seem to be slightly inactive. Also - I'm not sure if you're trolling - but on your userpage it says "You might wanna try morden warfer 2". Your userpage reflects your identity as a wikian, and that is not impressive. -- ^{T C E} 07:33, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment It was from vandalism on an image's talk page that I deleted. Darkman 4 07:41, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Since when did we factor in user pages in RfAs? --Scottie theNerd 07:42, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. And Scottie - anything that counts, pertains. -- ^{T C E} 07:43, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment It could be that he thinks having a joking userpage for a major member might not look good on the rest of the wiki. I don't care for having a large and serious user page, so if I'm penalized for that, then so be it. Darkman 4 07:44, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Since when did userpages count? If I'm applying for RfA, I'm going to be judged because I'm...Asian? Might as well pick on how lame someone's username is or what model car they drive. Unless there're inappropriate things on the userpage, that's a really aesthetic item to use as criticism. We've never used userpages as a criteria for RfA. --Scottie theNerd 07:48, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Agreed. Darkman 4 07:49, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Change to pending - If swearing hasn't penalized others I won't be troublesome. —Unsigned comment was added by TheManOfIron

Neutral - Try again in a couple of months time. The only 'crats we have at the moment is Chia and Saint. Even though they have had less edits than you, they are very experienced, know what they're doing and lots of other reasons. I'm not saying you don't deserve it, you do deserve it. DevilWarrior11209:14, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Darkman is much more experienced than Saint and knows what he is doing just as well as Chia does. You aren't in any sort of position to say things like that. Imrlybord7 08:18, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

We're also trying to veer away from comments such as "He deserves it". Adminship positions aren't deserved. They're tools that enable the user to take on more responsibility. --Scottie theNerd 08:20, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Dark's a great admin. Very polite and always comes through when I have a problem, especially on technical aspects of the wiki. I'm positive he'll make a great bureaucrat. Chief z 09:47, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - While his activity has been stuttered recently, I think he will become more active if he earns bureaucrat-ship. I think Darkman 4 has been an invaluable help to the wiki. As he stated somewhere he was one of the people who made this place go from a dump to one of the best sources of CoD info. I think he is ready for this position. His dedication to the wiki is incredible as you can see from his editcount. I would love to see Darkman 4 as an bureaucrat.      10:20, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

'Nuetral- I know this must sound exactly like a broken Queen record, annoying and pestering, but there have been past things that have gotten into big wars and someone losing their powers (I think we all know what I'm pointing at). To put it simply, if he is voted in, I'll support it, if he loses office I'll support it. Plus as well, if COD4's goes in, then there will be somewhat of a unneeded ratio of crats to admins. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Support - Wow. Was going to put this up myself this morning. Darkman has had a lot of experience on the wiki, receiving administrative powers in December of 2008. I think as his first talk page message states pretty clearly, he turned things around for the wiki when he started contributing. He is also responsible for the creation of at least five different policies (I might be forgetting some): the Character Policy, the Image Policy, the Level Policy, the Perk Policy, and the Weapon Policy. His commitment to the wiki is admirable and I see no qualms in granting him bureaucratic powers. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 12:02, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Bovell. --Scottie theNerd 12:45, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Bovell. He always tries to help out in the community. J~money ^{T C E} 14:39, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Bovell. You don't seem to be very active though. Lt. Dunn Talk 14:44, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Did you get the idea to do this of CoD4's last RFB when I said he couldn't go by activity? Per Bovell, like I said on that, you're probably holding the most mainspace edits of anyone active. Smuff 15:18, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Darkman has a metric shitload of experience on this wiki. I don't know why he wasn't nominated before. 4oh!4 ^{File Not Found} . 23:26, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone else, It's time we made Darkman4 a 'crat. --Braden 0.0 00:04, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He would make a good crat. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gifPoketape ^Talk 01:15, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He would make a good admin and crat.--CheezyDerek 01:18, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - 'Tape and Saint are really the only veteran B-cat/Sysops left. We need another. While I will admit you havent been present round the clock, nobody expects that. Slowrider7 03:03, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Poketape? Bureaucrat? What? Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 05:03, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Oh crap. I meant you Chia. MY BAAAAD. Slowrider7 11:13, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Support - He has done really great things for this wiki. I see no problem with him becoming a crat. DevilWarrior11212:19, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Seen him around the wiki, will make a great bureaucrat. Per everyone else. File:8-bit price.jpgUkimies Talk 14:36, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Out of all the users on this wiki, Darkman is one of the most deserving for the position of a bureaucrat. Dark Anomaly

User does not have required amount of mainspace edits. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Support - I think Darkman 4 would make a great Bureaucrat. General Cod1 ^Talk 19:53, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per CoD4 & Bovell. File:Richtofen.jpg Doc. Richtofen 19:00, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Neutral - We don't need another 'crat. File:Dunn sig.jpg 11:32, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Per all who supported you. A great editor, and you've done so much for the wiki. File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem.gifSactage Talk 22:34, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RfB Successful - Darkman will be a 'crat shortly. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 21:00, April 16, 2010 (UTC)