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

MLGisNot4Me^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

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

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

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

What comes to the opposing reasons on the previous RfA:

1. No need - When a user is made an administrator, he/she doesn't need to show a huge need for the tools. As long as the user shows some use for them, good. If a need for a sysop that would need them more was mandatory, no one prevents us from making more sysops. Also, I would find a good use for them, since I find a bigger task I have to ask an admin to handle 5 times a week on average.
   Here's some examples of tasks left at COD:AR: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].
2. Behavior and maturity - I'm guessing everyone knows about the fight about COD:AR with Callofduty4, and I can say I'm sorry of my idiotic behavior then. However, I have improved my behavior significantly, and learned of my mistakes. If you're getting pissed, you should either just ignore and keep cool or leave, instead of raeging. Besides, everyone makes mistakes sometimes. But if we take a look elsewhere, I don't show any significantly bad or offensive behavior. While I may seem sometimes angry, it just may look like I'm angry, and even if I really was pissed off (for example from raging at Type 95) and were here, I'd never let the rage be a factor in any of my actions or let it show.
3. Too many new admins at that moment - Well, as of now Raven's wing was made an admin about 5-6 weeks ago, and Shotrocket6 about a week ago (also taking count by the time this nomination is over it's two weeks more). However, I believe Raven has become familiar with adminship, and Shotrocket is not just learning it, so it wouldn't be a complete mess if I were to enter. Also, I've had experience as an admin on another wiki for a few months, so I do know how to use the tools, and while different wiki is different and there are some differences, I'm sure there wouldn't be many situations where I wouldn't know what to do due to inexperience with the tools, but I'm all-in in learning. And if it was urgent and I couldn't do it, it's quite unprobable that there wouldn't be any other admins/users (depending on the task) that could do it.

Should this RfA be successful, would I become inactive? A pain in the ass? Abuse my tools? No, no and no. I would...

• ...be just as active and contributive as usual
• ...be mature and polite in my actions, especially to new contributors (noncontributing users as well)
• ...do anti-vandalism by monitoring all edits via S:RC and use the banhammer if there's a vandal on loose
• ...never misuse the tools or use them to my own, or any other individual's advantage
• ...keep up maintenance over all areas of wiki (which can be done better with sysop tools)
• ...listen to other people and check around for task requests
• ...moderate chat and IRC if need be.

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

Thanks for reading, and remember to keep it clean. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 18:23, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support — He's proven himself trustworthy with all non-admin tools excluding chatmod, and I believe he'd make a great admin. Phillycj 18:25, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
2. Support — In the past I have been skeptical of you, i'm going to be honest. But seeing you with Rollback, Custodian, Blog Patrol, 7000+ edits, high-activity, and all around being a nice guy, there is no doubt in my mind you would make a fine admin. And don't worry about your fight with COD4, it was awhile ago and you've grown up sense then, doesn't affect my vote in the slightest. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 18:28, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
3. Support — All has been said on the nomination. Also, inb4 Sarge opposes because of too many admins :P.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}18:29, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Withdrawing vote.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}18:39, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
4. Support — Everytime I go to this wiki, I'm always expecting to see you edting, and it always turns out that I'm correct. I think your better with the admin tools and other new circumstances that you need to take when being an admin. You are familiar with the admin tools and I have no problem with it, so I support. CoDE-2KGo to my talk page!18:57, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
5. Support — I always see you editing and after going on your profile, I think you do need to be an admin " N0ScOpZ 14:00, November 26, 2011 (UTC)" Lack of MS edits. elmo's ramblings 09:59, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — Without saying the "Too many admins" speech, I feel I don't know what good you would do with these admin tools you aren't doing already. While you say a user doesn't need a huge need for the tools, I believe that they do, otherwise we wouldn't grant them. It's simply that I have seen no proof you need these tools.File:AdvancedRookieSig2.png 18:44, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose — Seeing as the majority of this vote will be expressing my views on what you've stated on your nomination - I'll just make my opinion right now: I honestly think that you are trying too hard to become an administrator. While you have made good contributions to the wiki, I can easily assume that the majority of your contributions were either doing good to get noticed so that someone would either nominate you or say that you should become an admin.
   
   Now, to express what I think of some of the stuff you stated about previous votes on your last RfA:
   1. "No need" - I'm sorry, but showing "some need" for the tools can vary for whether or not somebody becomes an administrator. Considering your current needs for becoming one are for stuff that is already being covered by the current administrators I don't see much of a need to sysop you.
   2. "Behavior and maturity" - I refer to my first paragraph where I stated that I feel as if you are trying to become an administrator. If you're just making edits to become an administrator then I wouldn't even consider supporting due to the spirit of the nomination. What I feel you're doing doesn't come close to showing maturity or the knowledge of what adminship is.
   3. "Too many admins" - With Raven's wing and Shotrocket being made admins only a (few) week(s) ago, there isn't a need for another administrator if they are already doing what you've stated you would do if you got the flags.
      
      Instead of just asking for adminship, you could just as easily helped out the current administrators with their tasks, which would lead to things getting done faster and more efficiently. If you really edit because you are dedicated to contributing to the wiki - then helping the current admins (beyond telling them what to do for a task) would be the best way to show it. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 19:01, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

   I often counter things such as heavy vandalism where the first admin to give a helping hand comes in a minimum of 5-10 minutes. While there is IRC and there's pretty much always an admin there, I can't always use IRC where I could report it. And I'm not editing only to look good. And while it would be a good way that I'd help the current admins, it'd be still a good way that I can handle things myself, and likewise other users could help me. I look like I'm trying too hard to become an admin, but ends justify the means. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 19:10, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

   You know for vandalism there is always /join #wikia-vstf or (if applicable) /query RandomTime. Pierogi^Talk 19:13, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

   As I said I can't always join IRC. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 19:14, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose — Per the great wall of text above me. Pierogi^Talk 19:07, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose — "When a user is made an administrator, he/she doesn't need to show a huge need for the tools," is complete bullshit. Why should we give rights to a user who doesn't look like they need them? With the way you've described it, you look like you're trying to use sysop flags to elevate your position on the wiki; you don't need sysop flags to remain part of the community. I see no true reason why you need adminship by any stretch of the imagination, and bringing up an old argument you had is just essentially rubbing salt into any wounds already caused. Basically, your RfA has unintentionally stated exactly why you don't need the tools. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 19:09, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

   What I mean is that someone doesn't need to show a huge need. There are people that are made admin this year that didn't specifically need the tools, but still found use for them. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 19:10, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

5. Oppose — Per all. N7 TC 19:14, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
6. Oppose — I feel as if the user doesn't quite understand the role of a sysop. Shotrocket6 19:22, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose — I don't see how you could moderate Chat and IRC, seeing that you have rights in neither. Other than that, Per Shotty. _Sp3c^Talk_ 19:26, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

   I would moderate them with admin tools (which include chat mod and ability to op yourself), maybe? - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 19:28, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

   You rarely get on IRC.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}19:32, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

   Unless you've had experience moderating this wiki's chat, which you haven't, we can't really expect you to be good at it if you get the tools. Shotrocket6 19:34, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, and you also caused a flame war in Chat a little while ago, I almost had to kick you from Chat. _Sp3c^Talk_ 19:35, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

   Wut? I haven't been in S:C since July. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 21:55, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

   It was a while ago, but I'll give you that. _Sp3c^Talk_ 00:19, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

8. Oppose — By the requests you put on COD:AR it appears that you do not understand why a page should fully be protected. While you are a good editor, you are't very level headed. While it doesn't happen very often, you do tend to get into some pretty ad arguments with users. Per all. File:Ireland flag.gifCoaZ^TalkFile:Ireland flag.gif 20:37, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
9. Oppose — Per All http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m119/steveisgreatsb/nerv.jpgCodfan5695 ^Talkhttp://i634.photobucket.com/albums/uu62/MawsCM/Rei%20Ayanami/033.jpg00:22, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
10. Oppose — Per all.File:20PX SIG.gif Talk 01:08, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
11. Oppose — Per all. --Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 02:25, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
12. Oppose — Per above Twig _(Talk) 10:08, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
13. Oppose — Per all. I really can't stand on your words. --DeltaCharlieMisfit^Talk?!?  13:12, November 26, 2011 (UTC) Insufficient mainspace edits. Shotrocket6 13:15, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
14. Oppose — Per all. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 13:50, November 26, 2011 (UTC)