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

Hi, my name is Joe Copp, and after some heavy consideration, I'm here to request bureaucrat flags.

I've been on this wiki for a good amount of time, and I've been an administrator since the beginning of November. I like to think I've done a pretty good job handling my sysop tools and that users would trust me enough to be granted bureaucrat flags. I have handed out a number of on-wiki and chat bans, and I have continued my efforts in the War Room.

I feel my request is now relevant because with the summer and the end of public school years rapidly approaching, chances are readership will grow with the abundance of CoD players having nothing else to do. Readership will increase, as will the number of users we have here. Not to get ahead of myself either, but future BOII news that surfaces will surely bring new users as well.

Currently we only have about 4 bureaucrats active: Azuris, Callofduty4, Sactage, and Chiafriend12, and while some may argue that is a surplus to needs, I do not see a reason why I, should I be trusted enough with the tools, should be opposed based on that reason alone.

While I don't do a lot of mainspace work myself, I'm always available on the chat to render help to those that need it. I have been called "The Community Admin," if that's worth anything.

Thanks for your consideration, and I'll learn from whatever you post. Joe Copp 09:05, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Support

Weak Support — I have no trouble in you having an extra set of tools as you handle the current ones well and you have my trust, but I'm not fully convinced that another bureaucrat to tick a box every once in a while is necessary. Template:Sig/MLGisNot4Me 10:24, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Weak Support — While i don't see why we need another bureaucrat, i don't see what can go wrong if we give you the tools. (so far) 10:54, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Support — Shot/Joe is a generally helpful user, and while he may not have the highest MS edit count, his contributions elsewhere, the community, show he is capable of being a good 'crat. Also he has not done anything that makes me think he would not be able to use the tools effectively.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

13:08, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

"Not done anything that makes me think he would not be able to use the tools effectively" neither has most of the admin team, yet they aren't running for bureaucrat. Pierogi^Talk 21:16, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Weak Support — Could be effective as a bureaucrat 14:34, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Weak Support — I believe he will make good decisions with the tools, however, we are not in dire need of another crat Ph illycj 15:30, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Support — Per Cod4. http://i.imgur.com/vm7BQ.png 15:37, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Strong Support — I feel that with the announcement of Black Ops ll and the inevitable increase of users we will have this upcoming summer, the wiki could strongly benefit from another fully active bureaucrat. Joe has had plenty of experience with these types of tools and is a very trustworthy user. Honestly I also feel the oppositions points thus far are weak and somewhat irrelevant.Red skin -26 19:19, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Since you're calling the opposition's points irrelevant, how might an increase in traffic bring about the need for extra bureaucrats? If it was for say, sysop rights, then yes, it would be valid as more traffic means more vandalism is likely to occur. Bureaucrat flags, on the other hand, are simply are for the handing out of rights to other users; there is no correlation between increasing traffic levels and the need for rights to be handed out with such immediacy; if anything, simply put, it's a nul point. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 19:31, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Having Joe available as a 'crat would make it easy to hand out and take away rollback and admin when needed, and if there is more vandalism, we might need more users with rollback, if there is a immediate issue with a administrator, there might not be any other 'crats on hand, as we don't really have that many. What I am saying is we might need another 'crat on hand for these types of situations. Red skin -26 21:20, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

...But the RfA process takes two weeks; odds are a bureaucrat will be around around that general period of time to pass the RfA in the first place, and there's only ever been three admins who got their sysop flags removed. Rollback flags don't overly need to be handed out with such urgency either, and I can't really recall anyone having their rollback rights removed. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 21:40, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Strong Support — Joe is an exemplary admin as it is now. Though he may not edit often, when he does, he is extremely helpful to the upkeep of the wiki. His attitude towards other users is generally helpful, and he never has held any hostility against anyone on the wiki. He is a very by-the-book admin, all of which makes him an excellent choice for Bureaucrat. Not making him one is simply out of the question. Metl^Talk 21:54, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Support — I have no reason to expect that Joe, an experienced, highly respected editor would misuse any of the crat tools, so I'll support. T4DZ talk 22:00, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

Oppose

Oppose — While I don't have an objection to too many 'crats, I feel teh reasoning in this RfB is slightly off. Readership increases don't mean that we're going to have a flock of new users putting in RfAs; even if they do then the RfA process still takes the guts of two weeks; all five (you left out Bovell) 'crats are all still very active and could easily close an RfA within the given time frame. Furthermore, I'm not really sure where this whole "The Community Admin" quote came from; from where I personally see it, I'd be more likely view Callofduty4 as that, and he already has 'crat flags. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 13:21, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

When have you last seen Bovell? I've only seen him make opinion blogs within the last several months. Metl^Talk 21:56, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

He goes on IRC more than enough and appears in forums to point out flaws in my logic. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 21:58, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Six, WHISKEY35 :3 Pierogi^Talk 22:40, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose — Per smuffin N7 T C 14:43, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose — Per Smuff http://i.imgur.com/PjvXR.pngStrike http://i.imgur.com/IZwoa.png Talkz 14:54, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose — I have been somewhat concerned with your attitude on certain parts of the Wiki and your actions on certain forums. I feel 4 active bureaucrats is definetly good for the current time. While I am impressed with your work as a sysop, I say hold back from bureaucrat rights for now. DarkMetroid567^okay 15:05, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Can you go into more detail with the "forum actions" point? Joe Copp 20:21, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

^ Template:Sig/MLGisNot4Me 20:29, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose — Per Smuff. In addition to this, I am not sure about the fact that you can be trusted with them therefore you should be given rights. There are many current administrators, even saying that users, who could be trusted with the tools. While I agree you can be, what makes you the one that's any different? DrRichtofen (Talk) 15:40, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose — I don't think you'd benefit from the 'crat flags so much. I think that everything you do around the wiki can be done very well with the admin flags, there's no need for you to have the 'crat tools now. Also, per Smuff. Leon S.Kennedy ^{AKA Shepard} 15:53, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose — While readership may increase, that reason sounds like reasoning for admin tools, not bureaucrat tools. Also, you're not as active on the wiki itself (not chat) as I would like in a bureaucrat. Pierogi^Talk 19:35, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose — Per Smuff. We don't need an excess of users to do the occasional giving of Rollback, Sysop, or the like. In addition, while I was in chat a little while ago (most likely a week) I joined an referred to him as "Joe Clop" as I had heard users on IRC refer to him as. He responded with something along the lines of "Big surprise that users from IRC called me that" and then stated that he was going to go offline because he was too angry. The reason I'm putting this is because I don't think someone who seems to be prejudice against a group of users should be a B'Crat. _Sp3c^Talk_ 23:02, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

But calling someone "Joe Clop" isn't exactly the nicest thing to do. Pierogi^Talk 23:07, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

At the time I didn't even know what it was. I stated that I heard it from people on IRC after he yelled at me for saying it. _Sp3c^Talk_ 23:28, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose — Per Smuff The Wikia Contributor ^T ^| ^C ^| ^E ^| ^Q 23:11, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Comments/Questions

Comment — I am quite sure the Bovelli M1014 is still active as well. User:Sactage/s.js 15:07, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't see him around as much as the other ones, but I have seen him. Joe Copp 20:32, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Comment — Where is WHISKEY? CoDE-2K Go to my talk page!20:42, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

^ Pierogi^Talk 20:53, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Not here. :3 Red skin -26 21:57, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Comment — If Darkman4 becomes active again (he contributed for the first time in over a year just a few days ago), would this have make Joe have a lesser chance at becoming a bureaucrat? Metl^Talk 22:05, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully not. _Sp3c^Talk_ 23:04, May 14, 2012 (UTC)