Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship/N7

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

Request for Adminship: N7 Submitted: 29 April 2011, by YellowRiolu Closed: May 13 2011, by Callofduty4 Result: Successful

N7^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I, YellowRiolu, nominate N7 for adminship as he is an honest member, he's honestly devoted to this wiki and basically Call of Duty, he seems to know the tools already and has good thoughts of how he can improve. He can also improve the blogs and this will make a massive impact to the wiki. This may well be the most important RfA this year as a result. YellowRiolu Leave a message! 15:39, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank YellowRiolu for the nomination, and I gratefully accept. — N7 TC 19:40, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Support

Support — As nominator (stupid me forgot!) YellowRiolu Leave a message! 15:52, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support — Great, friendly user who really has an eye out for perfection. You can see this in one of his many blogs. He's also great with the community and knows how to use wikia coding. Overall, YES!! _Sp3c^Talk_ 15:53, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support — Friendly user who is well known among the community for his high standards, particularly in his news-related blogs. Basically per Sp3c. elmo's ramblings 16:03, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Extremely Strong Support — N7 definitely deserves the rights. He has the traits which most admins need, which are:

1. He's well known by the community
2. He's Respected and liked
3. He has knowledge of coding
4. He has very high quality edits
5. He is very active

In addition to these, there are some unoffical points:

1. He is a Narb
2. He is nearly always the first to post important news.
3. He accidentally The Game.

Blackout^{I'm back!}16:12, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Extremely Strong Support — Friendly, Very good user. Per everybody else on support. Very deserving of the position.Reznov115^Talk 19:06, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per Reznov115 Carbonite 0 20:43, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Great friendly user who will definitely benefit from these tools. Nikolai Cannot Die 07:04, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Extremely Strong Support — He's a great user and I'm sure the wiki will benefit with him also as an Admin as well.} JerryWiffleWaffle 17:00, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Extremely Strong Support — He's a great and helpful user. He (and the wiki) will greatly benefit from what he can do with admin tools. --CoaZ^Talk 19:29, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Extremely Strong Support — N7 Has many of the traits that an admin should have. He knows the wiki well and other users respect him. He is very friendly and will help others out with no hesitation I Dont Know A Good Username ^Talk 11:48, May 1, 2011 (UTC) User lacks mainspace edit count. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 12:26, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support — In all my time on the wiki, I have only ever known N7 as a friendly, mature, and respectable user. His maturity and willingness to help others and the wiki is a textbook example of ideal sysop material. Sgt. S.S. 14:45, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per all.Senior Sammich Omnomnom Azuris is a nub 18:49, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per all. hey what can i say he's a great user cheytac 18:53, May 1, 2011 (UTC) User lacks mainspace edits. — N7 TC 19:05, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Just stick to your word and it'll be all good.      21:09, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Weak Support — Per all. Pierogi^Talk 02:01, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per Callofduty4. --AJ.Bialke 09:41, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Can't get worse I suppose... -- CakeMix^{N7 nty} 16:12, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Uh... I think you mean, "can't get better". :P Sgt. S.S. 19:05, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support — After thinking about it, I have decided that N7 would make a great admin. He has always been kind, respectful and responsible in my eyes. 14:20, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Yeah, you're maturing now so... Smuff^{[citation provided]} 21:07, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per Cakemix. The more the merrier Dr. Feelgood 23:44, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Extremely Strong Support — Nuff Said.—Unsigned comment was added by Soap-Mactavish. Talk 02:18, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral leaning towards Oppose — All of the admins like to have fun and screw around a bit, but that said, I'm not sure if your maturity is anywhere near the minimum of what the wiki would expect... improve on this. I won't give you a full oppose, because I don't think you're completely out of a chance.      01:33, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral — While I'm sure you'd make a great admin and would get on great etc, I'm not sure that you really right for admin now (Trying to advoid mentioning maturity) Plus, I don't think the wiki needs so many admins at the moment. 13:37, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to stress that there is no maximum to the amount of administrators we can have. The more, the better the wiki will be. RSWiki has about 75, and they run just fine. _Sp3c^Talk_ 07:55, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget that over 50 of those don't edit much. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 07:59, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

And on this wiki only about 10 sysops and bureaucrats have edited regularly and recently. — N7 TC 09:22, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, I see nothing wrong right now, the team are functioning pretty well right now. -- mr_expert talk 19:10, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral — After our convo just now, I think you can be mature, but it could be at a higher level. Pierogi^Talk 16:56, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral — To be honest I can't decide when I weigh the points up together. — Doc. Richtoffee ^{TALK | EDITS | CONTRIBS} 18:36, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose — Far too immature. Sorry bro, but you need to improve on your maturity greatly.      15:58, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose — While I'd normally say that this excuse is invalid, Sp3c is still learning how to use his tools properly and we're going to have CoaZ getting sysop rights on May 3rd. We can't deal with dealing with three users learning how to use all these new tools. Per Callofduty4, sorry dude. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 16:06, April 29, 2011 (UTC) I changed my vote so shut up about it. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 21:07, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose — Need to mature, and too many admins at this time. Sorry.Reznov115^Talk 17:10, April 29, 2011 (UTC) Changing vote, Can someone strike this trough please?Reznov115^Talk 19:04, April 29, 2011 (UTC)^{Done BlackoutI'm back!19:11, April 29, 2011 (UTC)}

Oppose — Sorry but you don't stand out in the crowd. I believe that you aren't the best candidate for this position. Also, you need to mature a bit, brosky. I know that you like to have fun, but you've been quieted several times on IRC. I doubt you will take the job seriously. Maybe in <insert time limit over 5 months>. Note to Smuff: I did this one without reading the nomination. Rambo362 20:23, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose — You can be too immature at times, and have been quieted on IRC multiple times for it. There's also the fact that most of your best contributions are to images and news blogs, which is great, but can be easily done by any user. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 20:34, April 29, 2011 (UTC) _{The points above are somewhat valid (other than the blogs contributions), so I'll remain neutral on this RfA. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 20:46, April 29, 2011 (UTC)}

Weak Oppose — Per Smuff and Callofduty4. I've been looking at your posts on Bovell's talk page assuming you like to work independently and on your own, but Bovell has the rights to edit your blog, and will do so if he finds anything wrong, so don't rant like a child ^{I'm assuming due to the usage of bolding}. And I'm assuming from this and what Rambo said about your maturity, I can make an assertion that you aren't the best candidate here as of now. -- mr_expert talk 20:57, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Comment — Using bold was me trying to get a point across and me and Bovell have now sorted out about the news blogs and I see where he is coming from with the whole we're not IGN thing. N7 TC

Yes, I was assuming it, not saying it was definitely ranting. -- mr_expert talk 21:05, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Vehement Oppose — Per CoD4 and my logs from a few weeks ago. Pierogi^Talk 00:15, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Comment — So are these the logs of me and Sp3c telling you to stop trolling everyone? — N7 TC 07:34, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

No..... that never happened...........o.O Pierogi^Talk 16:50, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Uhhh... can you like... show us the logs? Smuff^{[citation provided]} 16:54, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose — he doesn't need it. hes good as in he puts in news early and lets us wiki users know stuff, but i think that adminship is a privelidge not an award. and im sure he should get an award clawdenx^{leave message here} 08:18, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

LOL how many do i need clawdenx^{leave message here}02:32, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

i did it can someone unstrike i plz... clawdenx^{leave message here}03:18, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

None of us are saying it's an award- and it's not only the blogs and news he excels at. Read my reasons for supporting to see why some of us think he deserves it. Blackout^{I'm back!}09:02, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Weak Oppose — I haven't really been impressed with his behaviour; This is the most recent example that springs to mind. Raven's wing ^Talk17:38, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

So having an opinion and a sense of humour isn't allowed? — N7 TC 18:05, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

I had an RfA marked down for "snobbish behaviour" for less. Raven's wing ^Talk

Still wasn't appropriate, N7. — Doc. Richtoffee ^{TALK | EDITS | CONTRIBS} 19:16, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest that "snobbish behavior" was centered on because it was sustained, this was a one off. I yell at people in blogs all the time and nobody complains, why you and Richtofee (who I thought left the wiki) are opposing over such a miniscule detail is just stupid. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 21:07, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Change to Oppose — To be honest I have to side with Raven's wing for this one. Because while you do have a good sense of humour, you don't always use it at the right time, such as the blog comment above. — Doc. Richtoffee ^{TALK | EDITS | CONTRIBS} 19:22, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, he posted a blog comment which you didn't like. Hurry up guys, let's oppose his RfA.      19:41, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

No, it was hardly appropriate. — Doc. Richtoffee ^{TALK | EDITS | CONTRIBS} 19:50, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

And neither is your vote.      20:05, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

It was hardly offensive either. — N7 TC 19:52, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

...and where did I state it was offensive? — Doc. Richtoffee ^{TALK | EDITS | CONTRIBS} 19:56, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

So there's no standard of behaviour potential SysOps are held to? Raven's wing ^Talk19:58, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

How was he misbehaving in any way? He posted a YT video which was his opinion. You can't pin people up because their opinion differs to yours.      20:05, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Current sysops behave far worse than that sometimes and it's not brought to our attention, but because N7 has an RfA it's suddenly grounds for an oppose, hmmm? Considering the tools are based on the user and not what they find funny that's kind of an invalid/unrelated statement. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 21:07, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

It was more the fact he gave an implied "no-one cares about this so why is it here". If he didn't care about it purely based on his opinion there was no need for him to even post in the first place. Raven's wing ^Talk21:19, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

I never said why it was there. People can post blogs like that if they want. — N7 TC 21:22, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

It's one of those "tl;dr" things. Iirc, nobody has ever brought up a single blog comment as the main reason they're opposing an RfA. If I didn't know better I'd say that you were simply waiting for a reason to oppose this RfA and just didn't have a reason to do so until now. Also, fix your timestamp, it's fucked up. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 21:24, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, you're opposing for no reason, just a blog comment which he posted.      21:32, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

You said yourself he has a history of immature behaviour. Out of interest, how is me bringing up a recent example I had to hand "opposing for no reason"? But beyond this, what has he done to show himself as a shining example of the community and someone worthy of the position? And I don't know what's wrong with the stamp to make it do that.Raven's wing ^Talk

Wasn't really misbehaving in any way, it was just inappropriate. — Doc. Richtoffee ^{TALK | EDITS | CONTRIBS} 06:58, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Considering he didn't even do the slightest bit wrong in that comment he posted, you're picking out something which well, doesn't count against him. What has he done to show himself as a shining example of the community? He's constantly around and willing to help someone, he clearly knows what's going on, and what is wrong, and he's easily one of the best known members of the community through his news blogs, which keeps us up to date with CoD news really without fail. He also has his fair share of antivandalism edits too. He stands for more than what that blog comment may show.      22:38, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, alright. Calm yourself! ^</sarcasm> — Doc. Richtoffee ^{TALK | EDITS | CONTRIBS} 06:58, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

And how is being a sysop going to help with any of that? He's getting on fine without the status right now. If I'd known I was going to get pilloried this much for an opinion, I wouldn't have bothered. Raven's wing ^Talk22:44, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Comments/Questions

Comment — I'd just like to point out that being good at coding won't necessarily make you a good admin. elmo's ramblings 16:37, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

It's a good trait to have. _Sp3c^Talk_ 16:46, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Not really.      19:51, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

I can't even so much as touch code. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 13:01, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

So? Just being able to code doesn't make someone admin material. Template:Signatures/Sactage 13:47, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Comment — I know but N7 will be good anyway, I just know this. YellowRiolu Leave a message! 16:42, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for showing off your prowess in being a psychic.      17:04, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comment — OK, let me introduce myself first. I'm Xd, a guy who hangs out too much in yer IRC channel and consequently I see N7 almost daily. I have no experience of N7's wiki behavior, but I've seen him reporting vandals and stuff in IRC—which indeed is a good thing. However, I've also seen some immaturity like mentioned above. I'm sorry to say, but I don't think he would be a good IRC operator—at least not now. However, he is a nice guy overall. Just my two cents. Xd1358 19:13, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Comment — The amount of times I've had to quiet N7 on IRC is probably more than anyone else...      19:51, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but I say something about PS3 and "You are quieted on #wikia-cod". :3 — N7 TC 19:57, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, but /nick nou when the channel is muted doesn't help your cause :P      20:06, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

I strongly stress that adminship is not an award. When i look at all the support votes they say that ooh hes a good user and he puts up news fast and he deserves it. But this only deserves an award not adminship clawdenx^{leave message here}08:23, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Only two say that. I have no idea what you're lookin' at. Sp3c^Schneller 23:17, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - With 19 supports out of 23 votes, N7's RfA passes.      23:07, May 12, 2011 (UTC)