Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Callofduty4

Callofduty4 (5)

Callofduty4^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I, Cpl. Dunn, am nominating Callofduty4 for bureaucrat. He has been a great help to our wiki, and I feel our wiki would benefit from him having bureaucrat rights. He has uploaded good images, made lots of helpful edits to articles, and dealt with vandals exceptionally. He is an avid contributor in the War Room, and although one of his recent posts there is questionable, I have no doubt that if a bureaucrat he would behave with integrity and respect. Thank you, Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 17:25, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

I gratefully accept this nomination.      17:29, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support — As nominator. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 17:25, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
2. Strong Support — Callofduty4, in my opinion, should've been a bureaucrat a while ago. He is definitely fitting for the position. --<choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 17:30, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
3. Support — I already thought he was one and from what I have seen he only contributes to the good of the wikiPillsbury810 17:33, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
4. Strong Support — Callofduty4 has helped me alot in the last few days and is one of the best admins here. Helljumper "Folks Need Heroes"
5. Support — I don't know him as well as others, but he will be a great asset to the wiki as a 'crat with how much time he puts in towards improvements. Brothertim 17:41, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
6. Support — per all Price25
7. Support — He is very mature and helpful. Been active for a long time. Per all. File:20755-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Happy-Boy-In-Uniform-Holding-A-Basketball-On-His-Hip.jpgHappy Boy ^{T M E} 18:25, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
8. Strong Support — One of the best. >SiPlus -talk -contributions_ 18:48, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
9. Support — He is an excellent editor to the wiki and has been very active recently. DevilWarrior112 ^{Talk Edits} 18:50, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
10. Strong Support — Callofduty4 should have been a bureaucrat quite some time ago. He fits the position better than almost anyone. DoltenFile:1164610-433px usmc logo svg large.png Let's Talk 21:19, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
11. Support — Always there to help and offer advice when I asked. I am of the impression that this user would make a great addition to the Bureaucrat team.File:20PX SIG.gif Talk 21:26, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
12. Support — A very senior admin, participating in War Room and IRC discussions a lot. A lot of high-quality edits and very mature. One of the best users that has ever graced the wiki. Commander W567123daniel^{Wanna Talk?|My Duty|Wassup?} 21:44, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
13. Support — CoD4 is very fitting for the position. Per all. Sactage DILLAGAF? ^{Editcount Contribs Want a sig?} 21:57, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
14. Support — I remember a long time ago, CoD4, when I opposed your RfB on the counts of immaturity and harsh language. That CoD4 has gone, and what I see now is an extremely dedicated, hard-working, noble, intelligent and mature user who holds himself and the wiki with enormous integrity and honour. That's why it's my honour to say that you've changed for the better so much, and you deserve the Bureaucrat status you've worked so hard for. Juan José Rodriguez reportin' for duty. 22:17, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
15. Strong Support — Cod4 is a great guy. He has helped me whenever I have problems and politely corrected my mistakes. He definitely deserves this. Sgt. Guthix's mage2^{T C E}22:22, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
16. Support — Per all... 22:24, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
17. Support — Per CodExpert - 00:13, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
18. Support — Per Everyone else. -- Braden 0.0 ^Talk 13:07, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — Callofduty4 is one of the more active admins and has a knack for getting things done, often taking the expedient option rather than the lengthy bureaucratic one. However, there is an inconsistency in the way he approaches his duties. Most recently, as most of us are aware, Callofduty4 got himself into bit of hot water over a remark made in a War Room thread. This single comment, unfortunately, has shaken my confidence in Callofduty4's appropriateness as an admin, let alone as a potential bureaucrat. His follow-up comments in a related thread and his mannerism in a policy discussion can come across as brash and arrogant. I can't help but feel that Callofduty4 holds himself and his reputation above others and is reluctant to admit errors. At one point I may have supported his RfB, but when a legitimate concern is labelled as "unnecessary and plain annoying", I don't feel much has changed that would make Callofduty4 suitable as a bureaucrat. --Scottie theNerd 10:36, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose — While Callofduty4 has shown that he is capable of getting the job done, I have never been fond of the way he communicates. It seems to me that a bureaucrat should keep most things he does professional, with the occasional exeption, of course. Also, Chia's argument about applaudible actions and Scottie's argument about inconsistancies, among other reasons, have convinced me to vote Oppose. Shotrocket6 16:57, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Comment — Bryan says your a good guy. Lemon Tree Drop 17:43, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Who is Bryan? File:20755-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Happy-Boy-In-Uniform-Holding-A-Basketball-On-His-Hip.jpgHappy Boy ^{T M E} 19:12, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — So far, no one has said why Callofduty4 should receive a bureaucratic flag. Sure, he has helped the Wiki and he has been around for a while, but seniority has little significance in a situation like this and lots of people have helped out like he has. Simply by having requests for adminship and bureaucratship in which we pick our sysops based on their performance and whatnot, we're a meritocracy. I would pick a good user who's been here for five months over a questionable user here for a decade anyday.

Also, No one has given a need on behalf of either Callofduty4 or the community that there should be another bureaucrat, or how the community, site as a whole, or Callofduty4's contributions will exactly benefit from a received flag. Adminship is not given out to people who "deserve" it, and the same surely goes for bureaucratship as well. There ideally needs to be a need for and benefit from a user gaining bureaucratship rights. We currently have four active bureaucrats. Bureaucrats manage users' user rights and often call consensus at the end of community discussions. With four people on it, a fifth person won't be as useful as the second or third. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 22:39, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — I agree with Chiafriend. How would Callofduty4 the bureaucrat be different to Callofduty4 the admin? I don't doubt for a second that he is a fantastic user, but once you cross that line that says "promotion for reward", you're taking one step closer to saying that bureaucrats, admins and users are a pecking order that ranks users. We don't want that. I certainly won't oppose on this, but I feel that this needed to be said. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 23:10, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Yeah, but so many people under Callofduty4 have gotten the b-crat flag. He is a heavily trusted user. Lemon Tree Drop 23:29, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Disregard Lemon Tree Drop's input, he's PGB.      12:40, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — I will re-use the same reasoning I used for my past RfBs, which is the fact that being a bureaucrat, the users will look up to you more and possibly take heed to what you say more. This is not for my own benefit - rather for the wiki's. I feel that this is most certainly the case, even if that goes against AEAE. I feel I could help out even more than I can at the moment, yet if this does not pass, am still happy to help out, as I always have been, without being a bureaucrat. Also, an extra bureaucrat will mean there is a higher chance of a bureaucrat being on when one is needed, and considering I am on very often I'm often available.      23:45, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — @Scottie theNerd's oppose: In the war room topic about the armed forces policy, I figured that since I didn't even put it through a vote in the first place, it shouldn't even exist, so I took the expedient way out and deleted it. But, then I figured that maybe it would be best to get a consensus first. I had no clue why you thought I was turning the forum into a joke, when did you start feeling that? I wasn't turning anything into a joke. Also, that "single comment" does not seem to have shaken anyone else's confidence in me, I really do not understand why and how it could possibly have such a huge impact on you. I hardly agree that such a comment is a "legitimate concern". That's why I branded it as "unnecessary and annoying".      12:40, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Your manner rubbed me the wrong way, giving me a hard time in assuming good faith. Instead of clearly stating your intention, you posted that you'll "think you'll delete" it, followed by a matter-of-fact statement, and you then restored the COD:AFP page with the comment that we "might as well" have a vote. The attitude I felt I was seeing was one of being fickle and inconvenienced. Your removal of your comment in the Random Ops. War Room thread was done because you wanted to "wipe their tears away". It took Bovell to opinionate that your comment was ""incredibly hostile and unnecessary" that you acknowledge the concern, and I personally felt your apology was rather insincere. At the end of the day, no one's going to give a "flying f---" about this; but while you seem content with labelling my concern as "unnecessary and annoying", your initial comment in that thread was just as "unnecessary and annoying". While 95% of work on the wiki is admirable, I did not admire the way you handled this little mishap, and given what the community expects from a bureaucrat, I do not feel confident in your capacity to mediate and arbitrate on issues such as these. I accept that I stand alone in my opinion and do not expect others to share the same sentiments, but I wish to state this opinion regardless. If it wasn't important enough for you to address in the War Room, then I leave it here for you in your RFA. --Scottie theNerd 15:16, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

One incident (especially one which is actually relatively small) should not overshadow the rest of what I've done. It seems to me that you expect me to write out an extremely sincere apology to the whole of the wiki for some reason. I think you've taken this incident and completely blown it out of proportion. No one mentioned it before you, I don't understand why you have to make such a great deal out of it.

Regarding the COD:AFP deletion, I did not mean to annoy you. Maybe that was also the case with you going on about that comment.      16:40, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Regarding Chia's comment, I believe that a fifth bureaucrat would be able to come to a conclusion shoould the other four disagree with eachother. On another note, Callofduty4 is almost always on the wiki, which is a good thing for a 'crat. Shotrocket6 16:45, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — @Shotrocket6's oppose - Chiafriend12 didn't mention anything about applaudible actions, and one mistake most certainly is not an "inconsistency". You also actually support me in your comment, but oppose me in your vote, I don't understand that.      17:07, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

By applaudible actions, I was referencing when he said that many users voted for you only because of your experience. And by inconsistancy, I meant the way you deal with problems. And the comment was essentially just to make sure you knew I wasn't biased. Shotrocket6 17:11, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

How do I deal with problems inconsistently?      17:24, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

I think I know what you're talking about, and if I am correct, you're vote is personal and shouldn't be counted.      17:52, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

The inconsistancy comes from how, when say there's a vandal, sometimes you'll calmly point them in the right direction, and other times you'll curse them out. And as for your last comment; Wait, what? Shotrocket6 17:55, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

@Shotrocket6, Cod4 has his problems, (Like communicating) But I don't find what you just said right. ALN, For instance, Cursed out a Vandal, Why? The vandal did bad edits. And like Cod4 said, Your vote seems to be more personal, From the the flame war you had with TMOI. 18:00, August 14, 2010 (UTC)