Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship
From the Call of Duty Wiki
|
|
Give a good reason and request for adminship in the bottom subsection if you wish to become an administrator, or bureaucrat.
Contents |
Requirements for adminship
To qualify to be an administrator, you must meet a set of requirements.
You must
- Have been here for at least a month.
- Have edited at least a few hundred times.
- Be civil.
- Have no record of serious offenses (E.g. vandalism, personal attacks).
- Be known and trusted by others.
Regulations for voting
- Keep your cool. RfAs have been known to host some nasty flame wars. If another user disagrees with you and gives you trouble, just keep your cool and don't fight back. That may sound "cowardly", but if you fight back, you could receive a block, and/or make the flame war escalate.
- New users can't vote. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Someone can easily make a bunch of dummy accounts, all vote for their friend to be an admin, and unfairly turn the tide of the vote. For this reason, new users cannot vote for the possibility of being a sockpuppet. Anyone trying to use sockpuppets will be blocked.
- Be descriptive. Though you don't have to, it's a lot easier for a discussion if you say why you're voting what you're voting. If you just say "Support - --Example 06:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)", you're not really saying why the candidate should be an admin, and your vote may be excluded and
strikethroughed. It's not just for supports, but for all votes.
Glossary of vote titles
Not just the standard "Support" and "Oppose"s are used in RfAs. This subsections lists mosts vote types.
- Support - A positive vote.
- Strong Support - A very positive vote.
- Weak Support - A positive vote, but the voter is bound to change their vote.
- Neutral - A vote saying that the voter is unsure about the nominee/between supporting and opposing.
- Neutral leaning towards Support - A neutral vote, but closer to support than oppose.
- Neutral leaning towards Oppose - A neutral vote, but closer to oppose than support.
- Oppose - A negative vote.
- Pending - Vote not yet decided.
- Comment - A comment.
- Not yet - A negative vote saying that the nominee has not been around long enough, but would be admin material if they had been around for a longer time.
- Question - A sort of comment that asks a question. (Ex. What would you do with your tools)
Requests
If you feel you are up to the job, make a subsection for your request, and the community will discuss it.
SaintofLosAngelesXD(m) (2)
I'm not much of a speech person, but I nominate SaintofLosAngelesXD(m). He's got over a thousand edits and is a great, mature contributor.--Poketape 01:29, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Support: 8
Neutral/Pending: 1
Oppose: 0
Neutral - I'm rather neutral. While I do support Saint, I'm not entirely sure if we're ready for another admin or not. (yes I realize this is ironic from a guy with over 300 mainspace edits, but whatever) Cpl. Wilding 01:45, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Support - He's mature, keeps his cool, always helps out, both the quality and quantity of his edits are impressive, and he does his fair share of fighting vandalism. He would only use his tools when needed, for the best. -- 
SgM. Akyoyo Talk 18:11, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Support for the same reasons as last month's RFA. WouldYouKindly 20:38, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Support--Bigm2793 21:40, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Support--He's mature, makes great edits,helps out and a good friend. --Badboy24752 23:11, November 5, 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately, User does not have sufficient mainspace edit count. - Akyoyo
PFC. Badboy24752 T C E
Support--User was not voted in at the last RFA, although I believe he should have. My reasons why he should be admin are in the archive. Creepydude Sniper Say Some'at Here! 23:34, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Support--A great contributor and an excellent peer. He's got what it takes to be an admin.
Support--a fantastic contributor and a great guy. -- 
Azeratos T C E
12:36, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
Random Man 0213 23:43, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Thanks to all for the input, I appreciate the peer reviews. 
Spc. SoLAXD(m) Talk 23:46, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - So far it's looking good for you!--Poketape 04:27, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Support - User is admin material. Nuff said. -- Callofduty4 Talk 13:34, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Support - Every time I've spoken to this user he's been mature and helpful. A definite support. Thanks, Demon Magnetism :D (talk to me) 12:21, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
Cod1 (4)
I hereby nominate myself for adminship. Please support me I promise to be a mature, trustworty, and kind admin. I will be highly active on the wiki not just when Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 comes out, all the time! I also promise to keep vandals out, and to protect pages when nessesary. I have alot of experience with the wiki, My edit count is 1,614 edits and counting, I'm also an admin on the Made Up Characters wiki. 
Lt. General. Cod1 Talk
Support: 0
Neutral/Pending: 0
Oppose: 2
Oppose - jesus christ, again?....--Bigm2793 18:36, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - You really should wait a little longer. Also, you've already said you're an admin on that other wiki, but you know what? That doesn't mean you automatically become an admin on every other wiki you join. Could you also have spell checked before you submitted your request? I see three typos in it. And another thing, why did you put your request in the middle of the others instead of at the bottom? Are you trying to hide it because people will assume nobody would put a request in the middle or something?--Poketape 20:52, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
PhantBat
Hey guys ordinarily I've thought little about becoming an admin, until recently with the spike in vandalism. I've tried to revert as much of the damage as I can find, and would like to help further. I've always been nice to my fellow editors, and hope to continue to improve this wiki. PhantBat 12:58, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Support: 0
Neutral/Pending: 0
Oppose: 6
Not yet - I think for now you should just get rollback, and then after you've spent more time here, you should try again. -- SgM. Akyoyo Talk 18:12, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Not yet Per Akyoyo. Great contributor who has potential, but you might want to spend more time here. Although you should definitely get rollback, we're going to need all the help we can get once MW2 comes out next week. WouldYouKindly 20:41, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Comment I just want to say that "Not yet" means a negative vote, which means you should add a vote to the negative slot.--Poketape 04:27, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - I've hardly seen you do anything around here.--Bigm2793 21:40, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Good user, but simply not admin material. Maybe after some time at it this will become a reality. Creepydude Sniper Say Some'at Here! 23:44, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Not yet - user has some pretty good contributions, but not admin material yet. -- Callofduty4 Talk 13:34, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Not atm - This guy's a damn decent editor, but adminship's a little early is it not? (ironic coming from a guy with 250 edits) Demon Magnetism :D (talk to me) 16:52, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
Imrlybord7 (2)
I hereby nominate Imrlybord for adminship. He has improved his people skills greatly since his other RFA. I think he should be made an admin for MW2, because he is a by far the greatest help with MW2 stuff, and I think he deserves being an admin.
Support: 1
Neutral/Pending: 0
Oppose: 1
Support - As nominator -- Callofduty4 Talk
13:34, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Question - To get his tools, is it because he deserves it? Or because he needs better vandalism-fighting tools? What I mean is, he shouldn't just get them solely because he's "cool". Give them to someone who just needs a little extra ability to deal with those jokers. -- SgM. Akyoyo Talk 15:08, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Reply - Who said Imrlybord was "cool". Imrlybord needs these tools if he is to help as much as he has said and been doing with MW2. -- Callofduty4 Talk 18:22, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Not only is this user crass, snarky, and narcissistic, but with an idea such as semi-protecting all MW2 pages, I think that having this user as an admin could actually be dangerous to the wiki. Besides that, he recently failed an RFA. Please do not abuse the RFA by posting a nomination so soon after a failed one. A policy is en route to stop actions such as this. A valued editor maybe, but an admin, no. Creepydude Sniper Say Some'at Here! 18:45, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Closed Heard enough. -- Callofduty4 Talk 21:15, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Does this mean the RFA failed?--Poketape 05:15, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Okay, to be clear...
