Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Archive 5

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

CodExpert

CodExpert^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Hello, I am CodExpert, most of you may know me and some of you may not. I am here today to nominate myself for Adminstrative rights. I feel I have made some good contributions and have helped users. I have done my best to participate in forums and be as active as I can, by reverting vandalism, undoing bad edits, and spellchecking articles. I have accumulated Special:Editcount/CodExpert edits on the wiki. I am a very active user, being on this wiki for several hours almost every day editing articles, reverting vandalism, helping users, and trying to do my best on the wiki to make it better. I have been well-mannered and friendly to other users and I have done my best to work up from that and improve this wiki. I am trying to improve this wiki the best I can and I see no possible way of ending that in the future. I promise that if I do pass I will never abuse my powers and I will treat users fairly unless they have done damage to the wiki and/or it's users, I believe that if I get Sysop powers I will deal with trolls and other vandals more effectively, I will assist wikians in need of help and help them to contribute to the wiki and not vandalize if they have done so in the past. I will say my opinion and stand by it unless the facts prove me wrong. Thank you all for your time. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 16:29, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support	26
Neutral	0
Oppose	1

Strong Support - You are the only user that deserves Adminship right now CE. Your on late to protect against late-night vandals and you have perfect behaviour. Nice job.Slowrider7 16:34, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support- 7000+ edits is a lot. I always see you on the activity feed dealing with trolls and vandals. You definitely deserve to become an admin. Sgt. Guthix's mage2^{T C E}

Support - Your dedication to the wiki is outstanding. You would really benefit the wiki with admin tools.      16:47, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The 7,000 edits you have, added with the great integrity you uphold yourself with and the outstanding maturity = one of the most qualified requests I've ever seen. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez ^{Reportin' for duty.} 17:02, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per JJR, plus the fact that you are a friendly user would be an added benefit to you being an admin. - 17:06, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per COD4. Doc. Richtofen 17:09, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - User has been a great anti-vandal and reverting dumb edits. He single-handingly saved the real life articles from deletion. He used to be a blog shitposter but he's really cleaned up his act. Has a perfect behavior record. Darkman 4 17:25, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all, he demonstrates maturity and friendlyness towards all users he encounters. Talk 18:06, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. The Z(Talk) 18:10, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He is a great user whohas a great deal of maturity. Maj.Gage ^Talk. 18:15, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Darkman and CoD4 Blinzy45 18:47, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all.DevilWarrior11219:34, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - CodExpert is a mature, responsible user, and I have no doubt in my mind that he would be a great admin. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 19:55, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone. 404 Error ^{File Not Found Please Try Again} 19:57, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks a lot for your votes, guys. It means a lot. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 20:47, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - CodExpert is a great contributor to this community. Not only that, but he is mature and nice. I think that CodExpert could only help this place out even more with admin tools. He is a fitting administrator, and I hope to see him on the list soon. This is SkullRod, out. 02:01, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Imrlybord7 05:40, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You have been a great help to the mainspace and other users, and I honestly think you deserve an administrative position. -- CoD addict (talk · edits)

Neutral - You're a great guy, but it is undeniable that this recent business with TheManOfIron has involved more than myself. However you are a magnificent editor and one of our best contributors. TimSim(talk) 10:05, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - CodExpert has become a cordial member of the community and engages in discussion in a mature manner. He has also been doing an exceptional job at anti-vandal work, and would benefit from administrative powers in this way. Although I am slightly concerned about the flame bait incident that happened a few weeks back, CodExpert admitted that he was at fault, and that takes integrity. With commitment to the wiki, and a very much active user, CodExpert is certainly qualified for receiving an upgrade in user rights. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 13:27, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Support - he realizes that improving the wiki does not mean making the mainspace better necessarily, but requires examining flaws in the very core of the "system" (the policies) and actually tries to proactively improve the way the wiki runs. TimSim(talk) 22:07, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Expierienced, helpful, friendly, would make a model admin. Sgt.Maj.Delta 4-7 22:11, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Not to sound pushy or overeager, but with 20 Supports and no opposes; shouldn't someone pass it? I know it's only been two days but still... <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 22:48, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'll inform Chia.DevilWarrior11211:30, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

RfAs must remain open for the minimum time. There's no reason to waiver that requirement. --Scottie theNerd 11:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination - Braden 0.0 ^Talk13:08, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Sgt. Bravo Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all!? Skaterman.23 18:30, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - There is not much left to say. Per all Commander W567123daniel^{Wanna Talk?|My Duty|Wassup?} 08:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Change to NeutralOppose - I'm not sure if just another admin is needed, I really see the need for somebody that will put his focus on the War Room more. I see only one candidate that I believe is needed and would fulfill the role completely. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

That was a statement not of comparison, but more of that I've only seen one candidate so far that I think is right for the position, sadly he is not you. I am by no means favoring one user and opposing all others. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

In the past, I really haven't seen much participation in the War Room, and while your contributions are not disputable, I'm not sure if you'd really look at all of the base problems of this wiki. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Neutral- Would say support, but I don't like how he handled himself in the whole de-sysoping procedures.nlmgr 01:17, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Support- After looking through your edits, my criticism was unfounded.nlmgr 14:29, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thanky ou for the uh... criticism (not sure if it is or not...). But how is the way I handled myself not to your liking? I'm pretty sure all I did was support. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 21:21, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - He has a lot of experience and he is a very good editor. He deserves to be an admin. Insane281 05:08, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support- CodExpert has done plenty for this wikia to trust him with admin tools. Per all. Col. Price25 14:19, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RFA has passed. Darkman 4 07:00, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

WHISKEY35

WHISKEY35^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

To all concerned, I do hereby submit for your approval, a Request for Administrator status. I know that I am fairly new to the Wiki but I know that I can, and have been an asset to the Wiki. I have been active on the Wiki ever since I joined on 27 March 2010. I came here looking for info on Titles and Emblems and stayed on because I saw the need to better those pages. I have found that this wiki is in constant need of attention due to the vandalism that occurs here daily.
I have made well over 6000 edits, equaling over 400 to files needing licensing, over 3500 welcoming New Users, numerous reverts made by vandals, numerous categorizing to pages in need. I have also helped lot of new users with questions. If I don't know the answer then I will direct them to someone who can help them. I am also active in the War Room Discusions.
Some may say that all I do mostly is welcome New Users. While that maybe true, I believe that it is very important for letting the 'New" user know what the policies of the Wiki are and also to let them know help is available if they need it. Also they can check my edit counts and see that welcoming is not all I do in the Wiki. I am not merely interested in welcoming but the overall maintaining if the Wiki.
I am usually on the Wiki all the time and live in a time zone that permits me to be on when most admins are sleeping or away. Therefore, if I had the tools available to me I could take immediate and appropriate action to stop vandalization of our Wiki.
I believe I have demonstrated a mature and professional attitude while here on the Wiki and have made numerous friends while here. I do thank the Admins and Users that have helped me along the way and I will be here for a long time to come.
Your kind consideration in a positive approval would be greatly appreciated and I promise to do my best in my administration of this wiki. Sincerely yours, Talk 17:48, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support	20
Neutral	2
Oppose	5

Support - Outstanding, mature, and friendly user, greatly deserves would greatly benefit with administrative rights. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 17:50, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Great, mature, nice. I agree with CodExpert. Happy Boy |Talk17:54, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per CodExpert. The Z(Talk) 18:08, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per CodExpert - 18:11, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He is a very mature user and has welcomed SEVERAL user to this wiki, which means he has great skills with other people. I believe he has what it takes. Maj.Gage ^Talk. 18:09, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per CE. Doc. Richtofen 18:26, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per CodExpert. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 19:55, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone. 404 Error ^{File Not Found Please Try Again} 20:00, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Sactage -- Killer, Mau5. Blowing shit to hell since 1998

Neutral, leaning towards support - I dont know you enough to support you, but the paragraph you posted seems pretty promising. Slowrider7 22:26, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support Damn good user that is dedicated to the wiki. He fixed the licensing for the images that didn't have one last month, so he's definatly dedicated. Has a perfect behavior record. —Unsigned comment was added by Darkman 4 00:48, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Imrlybord7 05:40, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You really deserve administrative privileges because of your amicable behavior, your desire to help others, and your combat against vandalism. -- CoD addict (talk · edits)

Neutral, Practically Support - I regret having to vote a neutral, but as with CE, I'm not the only one who's had harsh words with or about TMOI. I am proud to say though, that if I had to choose one new user out of all to become a sysop, it would be you, you're a great guy and an absolutely WHiskey (hell I had to come up with a new adjective!!!!) editor. TimSim(talk) 10:13, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Strong Support - He's done too much for this wiki not to deserve this. TimSim(talk) 10:57, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Definitely someone who has the patience and willingness to undertake admin duties actively. Has shown a definite commitment to many aspects of the wiki. --Scottie theNerd 16:23, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - WHISKEY35 is a great contributor and has done a lot for this wiki, but he has lashed out at others for some little things and I'm not sure if he handles everything in the correct manor. Per this. (That was in response to this.) 16:36, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - Per my earlier comment. 16:50, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - WHISKEY35 certainly has the determination to help the wiki as well as high activity, but typing in all caps on numerous occasions is not a great style of behavior to have as an administrator. He can get his point across without "screaming" at the people he's talking with, and it is especially best for him not to feed the the trolls. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 20:41, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Point well taken Bovell and I will remember that in the future. Blinzy45 and I are friends and there is no animosity between us. And I wont be doing any more "screaming" in the future. Thanks for the critique as it only helps me to grow into a finer, more mature user! Talk 20:57, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If Whiskey did that more often I would have voted oppose, but it is definitely somewhat of a rarity. Imrlybord7 23:30, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support- Great user, welcomes new accounts very well. Also helps around the wiki a lot. Munchable901 |TALK? 18:29, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - WHISKEY is a very valuable user. I haven't seen him lash out at anybody, and I'm sure if he did he realizes it was a mistake. WHISKEY would be a great addition to the admin team.      10:53, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Awesome editor who deals with vandalism greatly. DevilWarrior11211:00, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Sgt. Bravo Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I, for one, don't really see you being very active, and earlier on, about two weeks ago, all I saw was you welcoming users. I feel you are not ready, sorry mate. Commander W567123daniel^{Wanna Talk?|My Duty|Wassup?} 08:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks for the criticism, I will make it a point to be more active. Talk 12:30, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Dan, where have you been? WHISKEY is one of the most active users on the wiki. - 12:22, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

All I ever saw him doing is welcoming users, and maybe some un-doing of vandalism. I never saw him actively contributing to the wiki. Or maybe I'm blind...Commander W567123daniel^{Wanna Talk?|My Duty|Wassup?} 12:28, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Whiskey is very much active, he has 6,843 edits and well, the rest are in his contribs. He's on all night almost everyday... <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 12:19, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Normally, I don't vote on other RfA's if I already have one up, but this is where I make an exception. Out of your 6,000+ edits, over 4,000 of them are user talk edits. I don't see welcoming new users as an admin quality job. I realize you've been editing and licensing images, but I fail to see how that makes you more fit for admin rights than other users with RfAs (not including me, I refuse to refer to myself in other votes). There is no doubt in my mind you'd be able to help fight vandals, but I don't think you're ready yet. I thought long and hard about this and thus I must oppose. Cpl. Wilding 18:10, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to point out flaws in your argument, first off: you already referred to yourself once before doing so again in saying you don't refer to yourself, so already I see holes in the validity of your oppose. Secondly, your RFA seems to be failing, while WHISKEY has the support of a bureaucrat, several administrators and the rest of the most active wikians, so, honestly, I see a motivation for you to attempt to derail him, as he's got opposition from other users he's been quite blunt with. And if he doesn't welcome, who will? I would but certainly I love working with him as a colleague to that end. However, a large amount of his talk page edits are aiding those new users, which is undoubtedly an action admins should take, his mainspace edits are few because they are more extensive than most edits, the job he does is that of an administrator, all that I see missing from his work is the actual blocking or deleting, because he hasn't those flags yet, on another note, how do you know, I rarely see you active? <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Oppose -- Darthkenobi0, you don't make any sense. I know Cpl. Wilding personally, he would make fun of another user just to make himself feel better, like a little twelve year old. He is a responsible person. Also, what in the world are you talking about refering to himself? That makes no sense to me. As for my vote, I'll have to say no, I remember when he joined, he was a vandal. I just can vote "yes" for some one who has done that. Before you freak out on me Darthkenobi0, I have nothing against him as a user...

I have no idea what you're saying... I'm really sorry but you seem to be a bit confused about the criteria and who you're voting for. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

• No, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I had to clean up his messes multiple times. Also, why can't WHISKEY35 talk for himself instead of sending an attack dog after anyone who votes against him. No offense to anyone, I just don't think he should have anyone other than himself campaign for him. I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone, just pointing out facts that I don't like about this. Also, please do me a favor, DK, and don't pull that "You're just mad because you're losing" junk on me that you used on Cpl. Wilding. That is uncalled for. Alex Martin Rider ^Talk

• • Sorry if this igniting anything... but that is not a valid vote AMR, you gave no reason to oppose or any critisizm on how to do better. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 17:47, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
• Whoa Whoa Whoa!!!! Take it easy! First of all I never intentionally vandalized on the wiki. I dont know you from Adam. Secondly I dont send attack dogs on anybody. People can comment on a negative vote as they choose. Thirdly you can check my talkpage archives, I have never recieved a block or vandal warning from anybody, ever. If I did make an error, it was just that, an error. Has none here ever made mistakes on the wiki? I grant you that I am not perfect. Nobody is. And you are entitled to your opinion. If I did vandalize, then I ask you, why did you not report it to an Admin then when it happened instead of coming on here now and Flame Baiting? Talk 01:11, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - While licensing hundreds of images and welcoming thousands of users is not something that really shows that a user would be trustworthy enough for adminship in itself, one thing it does show is extreme dedication for the project to do repetitive things that most people would honestly do their best to avoid having to do. Completely ignoring the manual tasks he has undertaken, some things I've noticed out of WHISKEY is his calm maturity whenever we talk, and metaphorical aura of overall dependibility I've figuratively felt around him. He is patient, often involved in our politics and decisionmaking, and I think he would make a great addition to the administrative team. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 20:06, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- I haven't seen you on recently, and the your messages/SPAM userpage I find very unprofesional. Sergeant Price25 He changed his vote to neutral below.

Whiskey is on more during the night/morning due to his timezone. And the Messages/SPAM thing is very funny and meant to be that way. If you were to not look at one simple message thing, and at his contributions, I think you would see that he is very professional and dedicated to this wiki. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 17:41, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Neutral- CE does have a point, but the overexaggerations mentioned above still make me unsure. Whiskey is a great user though... Captain Price25

Not Yet/Oppose - The only thing setting me off is that you don't really need adminship to do what you do - you do a fine job welcoming users, but other things are kind of lacking. However, I think in a couple months, you might be ready. Just improve a little bit, that's all I'm asking. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez ^{Reportin' for duty.} 18:07, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what he is lacking? <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 18:23, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per All Blinzy45 23:18, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RFA has passed. Darkman 4 07:00, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Cpl. Dunn (2)

Cpl. Dunn^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Hi everyone, for those of you who don't know me, I'm Cpl. Dunn. I am here to nominate myself for adminship. I have tried to be a very helpful user, making userboxes for usergroups and making signatures for people. I have made Special:Editcount/Cpl. Dunn edits, and Special:Editcount/Cpl. Dunn/main of those are mainspace edits. I have welcomed lots of new users, and made my own welcome templates with lots of useful information for them on them. I have no record of vandalism, save for a small message when I first started editing on Wikia. I have reverted a lot of vandalism and reported it to admins, to get it dealt with. I have always tried to be a mature and responsible user, and I assure you, if I get the admin tools, I will use them responsibly. Thanks for your time. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk)

Support	20
Neutral	0
Oppose	1

Support - With his editcount, that just shows the time he put in to make this wiki better. He's a great guy, and deserves would benefit Administrative rights. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 19:54, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per CodExpert. 404 Error ^{File Not Found Please Try Again} 19:59, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Cpl. Dunn is a great editor. He is nice and mature. Also, I agree with CE. Happy Boy |Talk20:02, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Dunn has consistantly proven to be an asset to the wiki any time he is online. I have the firm belief that he would be a great Admin. He demonstrates maturity and friendliness towards others at all times and helps out new users when asked. His Contributions to the wiki prove that he is a dedicated user and deserves the position of Admin Talk 20:05, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

GODLY SUPPORT A great user and friend ^{T C E B} 21:07, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Well liked and no issues. Has helped here and there and is currently working on our Topright project. I'd say he's dedicated enough to be an admin. Darkman 4 00:48, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I was somewhat reluctant to cast this vote because Dunn doesn't really stand out in any particular way, but the more I thought about it the more I realized that he can be trusted with administrative privileges. He is always civil and has demonstrated an immense dedication to the wiki. Imrlybord7 05:39, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - you've done enormous amounts for this wiki but I don't see how administrator flags would be necessary for your work. You have done a great amount for this wiki and are a great guy, you should receive every medal we have. TimSim(talk) 10:18, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Between the amount of time he dedicates to the wiki and his exceptional attitude, I think that giving Dunn the ability to delete pages, block users and IPs, and protect pages (+ a few other things) will benefit the wiki. Imrlybord7 13:15, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Change to neutral - As of now I'm only supporting one user for admin, all other of my votes will remain neutral, as I only see the need for a new admin that is on when few others are, as a sort of "watchman" if you will, and my vote is cast for him. TimSim(talk) 13:18, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per CodExpert. The Z(Talk) 14:43, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Cpl. Dunn is a very hard working editor and he has done a lot for this community. I believe that with admin tools, Dunn could only help the place out more. He's dedicated, mature and knows how to deal with stuff correctly. 20:27, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Whiskey. Doc. Richtofen 20:50, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Dunn deserves adminship a lot. Great editor, mature user and a great friend. DevilWarrior11221:01, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all Sgt.Maj.Delta 4-7 22:12, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Dunn, you are a great editor with dedication to both the mainspace and other users. I frequently see your vandal reports, and with sysop privileges you will be an even better user. -- CoD addict (talk · edits)

Comment - Thank you all for your support! Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 22:51, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support- He has done so much for this wiki, and he is a part of many usergroups that help this wiki, he is mature and has never stepped out of line and has welcomed many new users and made signitures/userboxes for many people. Price25 10:34, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support to Death-Dunn is a great contributer to the wiki and he deserves adminship. Rampantlion513 20:33, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Adminship isn't a reward. No one "deserves" it. --Scottie theNerd 12:06, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination. Sgt. Bravo Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - I see only one candidate that I believe will fulfill the responsibilities of an admin completely. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

That was a statement not of comparison, but more of that I've only seen one candidate so far that I think is right for the position, sadly he is not you. I am by no means favoring one user and opposing all others. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

You've made a lot of contributions, and you're a great editor, but I'm not sure whether you're honestly going to participate in the work of revising, drafting, or reviewing policy on the wiki, and I honestly am not sure if the extra tools will allow you to do much more benefit, as you aren't really on at times when admins aren't readily available as far as I've seen. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Support- Per C.Enlmgr 14:23, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support You've done good contributing to mainspace and discussions. Poketape ^Talk 18:41, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Dunn is helpful, kind and great here. I was surprised to see that he wasn't already a Admin. He is a great user. Hope to see you an admin soon.Captain Riley^{Let's Talk} 00:29, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Everything I want to see. Great mainspace edit count, great attitude, great commitment, great involvement, great presentment, great integrity, great candidate. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez ^{Reportin' for duty.} 18:07, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RFA has passed. Darkman 4 07:00, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

CoD addict

CoD_addict^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

CoD addict is the first of hopefully three users that I will be nominating for adminship. Before I discuss him specifically, I would just like to say that I am nominating these users because not only do I feel that they would make good administrators, but I feel that they would make better administrators than any other users with open RFAs. That is a compliment to them, not an insult to other users. Now let's get on topic.

CoD addict is an extremely dedicated editor with a focus on the mainspace. His edits are always of the utmost quality and he never leaves a job half-done. However, he also exhibits a satisfactory level of community involvement, during which he always presents himself as kind, polite, professional, and intelligent. I believe that he has done more than enough to prove that he will make an excellent administrator. And addict, if there is anything you would like to add to this please feel free to do so. Imrlybord7 08:29, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support	4
Neutral	0
Oppose	3

Support - As nominator. Imrlybord7 08:29, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral leaning towards Support - Per the nomination, I just have to look at your contributions and history a bit more before I make this a support. TimSim(talk) 10:21, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - Per nomination. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 11:07, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Judging by your contribs you are intelligent and a good editor. You appear to be extremely dedicated. From what I've seen from his contribs that were in War Room topics, he does seem very intelligent, polite, mature, and proffesional. Well, all in all, per nomination. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 17:26, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Bord. Doc. Richtofen 20:56, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - I see only one candidate that I believe will fulfill the responsibilities of an admin completely. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

That was a statement not of comparison, but more of that I've only seen one candidate so far that I think is right for the position, sadly he is not you. I am by no means favoring one user and opposing all others. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

I haven't seen you edit much and I don't really see how you'll benefit the wiki any greater as an admin than as a normal contributor. I also rarely see you working on reviewing the wiki's policy in such a way that aims to improve the wiki. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Oppose - I feel there are better candidates. CoD Addict is a great editor, but there are better candidates who I feel will do the job better.      21:03, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per COD4. DevilWarrior11207:35, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RfA Unsuccessful Cpl. Dunn^(Talk)

Cpl. Wilding(3)

Cpl._ Wilding^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I know that I don't have nearly as many edits as other users on here. I know that not everybody knows me. What I do know is that judging from my past two RfAs, some of our admins trust me already, some (Callofduty4) have worked with me on other wikis and know that I can be trusted with admin powers. The only things I can offer to prove my worth are the fact that I run my own Wiki (Task Force 589 Wiki) which I feel is good quality, in both articles and general layout. The second I can bring is out of my 1,000+ edits, 1,013 of them are mainspace. Thank you for your time, mi amigos. Cpl. Wilding 14:27, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	9

Oppose - Seeing as how you dont have many edits, and you dont have much knowledge about templates because I had to fix the format of this, I dont think your ready. —Unsigned comment was added by Slowrider7

Oppose - Too many of the above will be given, we actually will have enough admins, and honestly I rarely see you about. —Unsigned comment was added by Darthkenobi0

Oppose - Haven't seen much activity from you in major community discussions. I don't really care much about your other wikis or your 1000+ edits; what we need are more willing admins who have the patience and consistency to deal with wiki issues. --Scottie theNerd 16:13, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Have not participated in major community discussions and haven't got many edits. I don't think you're fit for adminship yet. DevilWarrior11216:27, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I haven't seen you active here enough, I haven't seen you partake in any major community discussions, edits don't matter as it is 'quality over quantity' (I do still appreciate the mainspace editing though), Running your own wiki doesn't really matter over on this one. Sorry, you just don't seem to be that ready for administrative rights yet. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 17:23, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - A very seniored user who has proven time and time again that he can be trusted. People might say that making you an admin won't do much if you don't become more active; that's fine. I know that whenever you are here you act just as an admin should and feel that we would be remiss not to grant you these privileges. Imrlybord7 19:45, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I haven't seen you active in a while. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 19:55, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Bord. Doc. Richtofen 20:58, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I realize I couldn't get the templates to work. That's mainly because I haven't worked with templates for a while in general, plus I haven't used said templates before, so... Anyway, yes, I know I haven't been active lately. I've been busy in RL and had a couple minutes to type this out and I was making quick changes in a hurry. I can also say that I haven't contributed to War Room discussions because, to be frank, what I want to say gets said before I get in, usually in better words than I could've put it in, so my opinion is basically useless. Cpl. Wilding 02:41, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - That's not the kind of opinion to go in with. Every vote counts even if the same sentiments have already been expressed, and it helps reaffirm the consensus when people agree. Besides, I think you are probably a bit more eloquent than a decent amount of our userbase. Although I didn't like that comment of yours, I will not withdraw my support because I feel that you would quickly rise to the task if you were given adminship. Imrlybord7 02:47, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Bord. I was a bit stressed when I wrote that, plus it was late, and...bah, I'm not even going to try to make an excuse. All I can say is whatever happens, happens. Cpl. Wilding 14:36, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Dunn. Sgt. Bravo Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see you active at all, lately. Commander W567123daniel^{Wanna Talk?|My Duty|Wassup?} 08:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The only thing I will say to those who oppose: Look though my edits, and disregard my activity level. Nobody can edit every single day. My policy is "quality over quantity" and I feel the quality of my edits overshadows the quantity of my edits. This doesn't mean that I think my edits are higher quality than current admins or other users who have RfAs: quite the opposite. I only ask that you think over what you have voted. Danke. Cpl. Wilding 19:14, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Bord. Not the most active user, but a trustworthy and mature one. Sgt.Maj.Delta 4-7 06:44, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RfA Unsuccessful Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 14:39, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Raven's wing

Raven's wing^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

A long time sleeper pick of mine for future adminship, Raven's wing doesn't have a particularly high edit count, nor has he contributed vastly to the wiki. However, in his ~1800 edits, he has simply never made a mistake. From mainspace edits to blog comments to war room discussions, he never fails to impress me with his intelligence, professionalism, and civility. The only misgiving I have about him is something of a lack of self confidence, but that has to be one of the smallest gripes I have ever had about an administrative candidate. Although I don't expect many people to agree, I beseech you to look through his contributions thoroughly before casting your vote. And wing, if there is anything you would like to add to this please feel free to do so. Imrlybord7 19:53, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support	7
Neutral	1
Oppose	5

Support - as nominator. Imrlybord7 19:53, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - Per nomination. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 19:55, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 20:00, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Imrlybord7. Doc. Richtofen 20:59, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Hes a somewhat snob, especially in blogs. Slowrider7 23:31, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Imrlybord7 Jeffnickers 18:18, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Slowrider has a point, but Raven's wing is a helpful user. So I am neutral. Sgt. Bravo Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I see better candidates. TimSim(talk) 13:42, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - Per all. DevilWarrior11207:20, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - I, for one, see better candidates, and, as the second, I don't see you active, apart from blogs. Commander W567123daniel^{Wanna Talk?|My Duty|Wassup?} 08:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I've never heard of him. He should be more active. User didn't sign. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 20:02, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination, I haven't see Raven much, but from what I've seen he's right for the job. Smuff 21:16, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - I see only one candidate that I believe will fulfill the responsibilities of an admin completely. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

That was a statement not of comparison, but more of that I've only seen one candidate so far that I think is right for the position, sadly he is not you. I am by no means favoring one user and opposing all others. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

I also don't see many contributions from you, what will you do as an administrator that you can't do as is? <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Oppose - I think there are better candidates, and I'm not fond of making more than 3 new admins. Don't get me wrong though, Raven is a fine editor.      21:03, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RfA Unsuccessful Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 14:39, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

AdvancedRookie

AdvancedRookie^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I nominate myself for the role of Adminship. I have been at this wiki since August 2009 and managed to get around 3,100 edits. While my edit count may not compare to others, what I have is experience and I seem to get along well with other users. I think I will serve the wiki well as an admin as I will be able to do late night shifts and I am very active. Over the years I have found Call of Duty Wiki to become a great place filled with great people. The wiki has taught me so much and I would be honoured to be an admin on it and serve it well. This is AdvancedRookie, reporting for duty.AdvancedRookie 22:08, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support	4
Neutral	0
Oppose	8

Oppose - nothing exceptional. TimSim(talk) 22:18, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Darthkenobi0. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 22:21, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Your popular around here, but you never really did anything except edit and comment. Slowrider7 23:33, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Generally underwhelming war room comments. You need to work on better articulating your opinions and backing them up with more solid reasoning. That's really my only complaint. Imrlybord7 23:35, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Advanced Rookie has done a lot to this community, he's mature, has a good understanding of the place and how it runs, he also participates in community discussions. I think that he has the qualities of a true administrator. 03:17, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He knows what he's doing, and he's someone that I'd trust as an admin. —Unsigned comment was added by Jeffnickers

Support - Advance Rookie is a great editor and friend. He knows what he is doing and I agree with SkullRod. Happy Boy |Talk20:37, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Bord, Slowrider and Darth. Sgt. Bravo Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - A well tempered guy that knows his way around the wiki, can take care of problems, and usually has a rational view on the subject. Shotrocket6 13:37, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - A nice guy but hasn't been active in community discussions though. DevilWarrior11213:51, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Excepr from the usual blogging or 1-2 mainspace edits, I never saw you doing anything really exceptional. Commander W567123daniel^{Wanna Talk?|My Duty|Wassup?} 08:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I didn't do anything exceptional, yet I still became admin. Doc. Richtofen 19:34, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - AdvancedRookie often fails to explain his opinions, and has a ridiculously high amount of blog edits compared to everything else. As a person, yes, as an editor, no. Smuff 21:11, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Candidates should be considered for their appropriateness overall; not just their editing. Prolific editors don't necessarily make good admins. --Scottie theNerd 04:20, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RfA Unsuccessful Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 14:39, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ukimies

Ukimies^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Although Ukimies hasen't been active in a while, he has been involved in community discussions and nearly has 3000 edits. He never fails anyone and has a theory for anything. Imrlybord was going to nominate him for adminship but it looks I've beaten him to it. He is kind, mature and nice to any user and has welcomed enough new users. I think he deserves adminship now.DevilWarrior11220:10, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support	16
Neutral	2
Oppose	3

Support - As nominator. DevilWarrior11220:10, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination. Lima Oscar Zulu Zulu Alpha

Comment - Ukimies hasn't been active because he's on vacation. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk)

To receive adminship, a user has to accept their nomination or they will not receive their powers, no matter how many people support it so that if they don't want it they won't get it. If he's not able to post that he accepts this nomination it can't pass until he can. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 20:06, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - Per nomination. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 20:19, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination, more or less. Imrlybord7 20:23, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination. Raven's wing ^Talk20:28, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination. Doc. Richtofen 21:02, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nomination. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 21:02, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't see a fit. TimSim(talk) 21:09, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Darth. Slowrider7 23:33, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Ukimies is a huge help to the wiki. -- CoD addict (talk · edits)

Support - Per nomination. The Z(Talk) 22:29, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Mostly per nomination. 404 Error ^{File Not Found Please Try Again} 11:50, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Darth. Sgt. Bravo Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - Per nomination and per all. Commander W567123daniel^{Wanna Talk?|My Duty|Wassup?} 08:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - I see only one candidate that I believe will fulfill the responsibilities of an admin completely. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

That was a statement not of comparison, but more of that I've only seen one candidate so far that I think is right for the position, sadly he is not you. I am by no means favoring one user and opposing all others. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Users don't "deserve" adminship, and as with everyone else, I really don't see you doing much that is "adminly", and I don't foresee you doing much you can't do now. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Comment I accepted on Bord's talk page but I'll also do that here. I, Ukimies, formally accept the nomination of adminship. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 08:34, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Cod addict. Shotrocket6 15:47, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet - Although Ukimies is a great contributor, I don't that he is fully ready for adminship. As darth said, I have not seen many "adminly" things done by Ukimies. I think that given more time, Ukimies will be ready for Adminship, but as of now, I don't think he is quite ready. Talk?

Not Yet/Oppose - Per SkullRod, in due time. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez ^{Reportin' for duty.} 18:07, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RfA Unsuccesful Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 14:39, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This looks like a successful RFA to me. Imrlybord7 01:03, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

There are 17 votes in total, 12 are supporting. Because this wiki works on a consensus, 70% of a vote is needed. This vote has 70.5%, which means it is actually successful in theory...      01:09, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

But remember, it's not just the percentage of votes; it's the reasoning and points raised in discussion. So far, the only main opposing point is from SkullRod, who raised his concern that the candidate hasn't shown admin qualities and is not yet the right time. Most proponents agreed with the nomination. However, the nomination itself is quite flawed: the reasons listed are barely relevant: being involved in community discussions (which is actually hasn't been frequently); never fails anyone (a baseless statement, unless he's a Russian spy); has a theory for everything (great if you're Einstein's protegé, not if you're an admin); has welcomed enough new users (not measurable and not an admin quality); and deserves adminship (which cannot be deserved). While I don't oppose the candidate, the reasons provided by the nomination and voters is quite poor given our raised awareness of admin issues. --Scottie theNerd 07:24, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Ukimies consistently demonstrates all of the prerequisite administrator characteristics (professionalism, dedication, eloquence, intelligence, courteousness, cooperation, etc.) in the mainspace, user interaction, and community discussions. 'Nuff said. And Devil, thanks for throwing together a completely asinine (as Scottie thoroughly demonstrated) nomination just so that you could do it before me. I really fuckin' appreciate it, pal. Imrlybord7 07:37, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - To remove doubt. --Scottie theNerd 09:37, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks Bord. This was the time for Ukimies to shine though. He is an amazing editor and he could make a great admin. I think this could be the start of something new Bord... DevilWarrior11209:41, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment and Oppose - I agree with Scottie here - the nomination paragraph is very poor and contains baseless statements as you say. If I had no idea of what Ukimies was like and had to base my vote on the nomination it would be a flat oppose. But still, because we just made 3 new administrators, I do not think we need another one, so I do not support this RFA, for that reason and the fact the nomination paragraph is poorly written. Nomination paragraphs are extremely important and cannot be rushed and contain irrelevant points.      10:32, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Ukimies is a personal favorite of mine and I would appreciate it if you considered my previous statement something of a nomination paragraph. Imrlybord7 20:19, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this RFA needs one more support to be able to be called successful. Doc. Richtofen 20:26, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The "nomination" paragraph Imrlybord provided is a thousand times better than Devil's, but I still think we do not need any more admins at the moment. Persuade me we do, and I'll change to support.      20:54, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Not needing Opposing an RfA because there are more than enough Admins right now is something I use to think was fine, but now I think this "Well, if a user is meant to be an Admin, and there is enough Admins, it's better for a user to be an Admin sooner then later if he is qualified for a user rights upgrade." So if Ukimies is qualified for a user rights upgrade, and there are enough Admins why not make him an Admin sooner than having Ukimies wait if he is qualified. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 21:03, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

It's because if there are already enough admins to handle the job, there is simply no point in making more. Administrative powers should only be handed out when and where they are needed, because otherwise there will be too many admins, and an overall imbalance in power. I'm not saying Ukimies should not be an admin at all because there are enough admins, just not at the moment.      21:13, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Opposing on the grounds that we have "enough" admins has absolute nothing to do with the RfA. It is no fault of the candidate nor is it in their control. This isn't the first time we see people opposing candidates because we apparently have "enough". Look what happened last time. RfA page gets closed, admins become inactive, we go through a huge discussion to re-open the RfAs, and we keep on getting this notion of us having "too many". They're just admin tools, for crying out loud. There's no cost to having more admins and logically having more admins means less work demanded from each individual admin. Isn't that a good thing? It's pretentious for us to decide to open the RfA only to say, "Oh, you can't be admin because you were nominated a few days after the other guys". This page is for the community to provide their input on prospective candidates and their suitability. If you have an issue with RfAs and how many admins we have, bring it up in the War Room and get consensus. What you are doing now is protest voting and depreciating the efforts of all candidates, which is in turn removing the point of RfAs. I'm yet to see any reason why we have "enough". Persuade me so -- and do it in the War Room, not someone else's RfA. --Scottie theNerd 21:20, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As Imrlybord has stated, Ukimies exhibits professional conduct in community interaction and rarely is anything less. His dedication to improving articles is admirable, which, along with other qualities Bord mentioned, lead me to believe that Ukimies is ready to become a sysop. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 21:39, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Again as Imrlybord stated, Ukimies does indeed posess the qualities an Admin should have. I can see no reason that he should not become an Admin. He has helped me when I first came to the wiki an did it in a very professional, giving manner. I will back him up in any way I can. I'm sure he'll do the same for anybody else. Talk 21:56, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Support - It seems Scottie theNerd is intent on making me change my vote, and he's succeeded. Ukimies shows all the qualities an admin should possess.      18:41, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

'Closed - RFA successful. Darkman 4 02:34, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Cod1(6)

Cod1^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I nominate myself for the role of Adminship. I have been at this wiki since January 2009 and managed to get around 2,600 edits. While my edit count may not compare to others, what I have is experience. I'm a very nice and mature user who treats all users with respect. I will protect pages and ban vandals if needed. So please vote me for Adminship, I'll get the job done! So everyone what do you think? General Cod1 ^Talk 22:11, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support	4
Neutral	2
Oppose	10

OpposePending - what sets you apart from the others that are filling this page with RFAs? TimSim(talk) 22:18, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - If all these other RfA's pass, we really won't need more admins. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk)

Response - I've been here longer than all of these users, and I'm a great user. General Cod1 ^Talk

Comment - I support CodExpert and WHISKEY35, I'll consider you and CoD Addict, depending, I really don't know enough about whether you two will actively influence policy and the actual operation of the Wiki to fit the sysop role. TimSim(talk) 22:28, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - CallofDuty4 thinks I would be a great admin. General Cod1 ^Talk 22:34, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Yes, that is Callofduty4's opinion. Just because he feels that way doesn't mean everyone else does. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 22:39, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I would support you but we have many RFA requests now! I'm supporting CodExpert, WHISKEY35, Darthkenobi0 and Cpl. Dunn at the moment. DevilWarrior11211:28, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Too many RfAs, and I never see you around. --Slowrider7 23:30, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Your activity is too sporadic and you haven't done anything significant enough to make up for that. If you were to become consistently active I would most likely support you in the future. Imrlybord7 23:33, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Your edits area contructive and I believe you have what it takes. Maj.Gage ^Talk. 01:05, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks Gage :) General Cod1 ^Talk

Support - Although we already have a lot of requests for adminship, that does not mean that all of them will pass. We should only have 3 new administrators. I find that you are great editor and you spend your time here constructively. I feel that you have what it takes to wield the adminstrative tools and I believe that you are capable of wielding them correctly. 03:08, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Too many RfAs, if [at least] 3 of these pass, we won't really need anymore admins. Braden 0.0 ^Talk 13:06, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

That isn't grounds for a negative vote. If we're down-voting because there are "too many" nominations, why not down-vote everyone...or, ironically, close the RfA page? --Scottie theNerd 13:16, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - As with last time, I'm not impressed by the number of your edits or the frequency of your activity. I'm not convinced that you would be an active admin. --Scottie theNerd 13:16, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - You are too impatient, not a very good trait for an admin. -- Ghost Rider ^Talk 18:22, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Cod1 is a constructive and friendly user. I believe he will use the tools of the administrator wisely and help this wiki even more. Per Skullrod. Happy Boy |Talk21:19, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - @Bravo Five-Nine: I've been waiting for an entire year, that's not impatient. General Cod1 ^Talk

Support — Cod1 has contributed greatly to the wiki, especially on NDS related topics, which received little attention from the community.   Hax 217    talk-page  22:22, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Pending - Per Darth. Sgt. Bravo Rider 12:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I looked through your contributions and your edits are not very steady. Some days you will make a lot of edits but at other times you will only make a few. We need admins that will be consistent, especially with Black Ops and all the new info that will be coming out all through the summer. E.TALE ^Barracks Headquarters 13:47, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

That's not really a valid point. One can frequently visit the wiki without making tons of edits every day. Good admins don't necessarily have to click the Save Page button x amount of times daily. --Scottie theNerd 17:54, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I haven't seen much activity from you. I haven't seen you participate in any major War Room activities. Maybe in the next RfA I would support you. --CodExpert 16:14, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The fact you made that blog with swears in the question has shown that you obviously lack the maturity to do a job like this. Normally I don't have a problem with it, but putting them in the title like that is a different matter. Your editing is sporadic at best, and like Bord said, I haven't seen anything mindbogglingly spectacular recently. Smuff 17:49, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I've seen nothing out of you for a long time until this. Poketape ^Talk 20:47, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - I see only one candidate that I believe will fulfill the responsibilities of an admin completely. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

That was a statement not of comparison, but more of that I've only seen one candidate so far that I think is right for the position, sadly he is not you. I am by no means favoring one user and opposing all others. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

I don't think you understand Adminship, and I don't think you're really anything exceptional or active enough, our edits are good but adminship is not about merit or popularity. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Neutral - I have no doubts about your ability (although sometimes you can be immature) - but your staggered activity is what worries me. Prove to me you will become active and I might support you. Giving admin tools to a user who then becomes inactive (<cough>Icepacks<cough>) is pointless.      21:03, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'll still maintain that Icepacks is the best user to have ever graced the wiki. I just wish he was actually here. Imrlybord7 20:40, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I never said Icepacks didn't deserve to be an admin, but I'm using him as a prime example of a user who gains admin privileges and then leaves us.      23:35, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - You can't use such a blanket statement as to say he was the best editor to grace the wiki if he left, that paragraph contradicted itself beautifully there. While he may have been a good editor, that means nothing when that user isn't avaliable to use that skill to begin with. Smuff 23:43, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RfA Unsuccesful Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 14:39, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Alex Martin Rider

Batman Rider^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Alex Martin Rider^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Hi, I'm Alex Martin Rider. I nominate myself for the role of Adminship. I have been at this wiki for over two years ago now. My first account was "Batman Rider" then I made a new one. I go on here almost evey day. I edit pages, upload many valuable images used for pages, and take part in discussions I'm interested in. I don't get in fights with other users and cooperate with everyone I meet. I am an admin on two other wikis and understand the responsibilities of being one. I hope you seriously consider me for the role of an admin. Thank you for considering me! -- Alex Martin Rider 01:56, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support	0
Neutral	1
Oppose	11

Oppose - Have never seen you around. --Scottie theNerd 04:14, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I've rarely seen you edit, and honestly you don't stand out as an exceptional editor. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Oppose - Have never seen you onRampantlion513 04:44, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - You uploaded a lot of good quality pictures, but your editing is sporadic. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk)
Strong Oppose - I'm with the above 3 on this one. I've seen you maybe once or twice. 404 Error ^{File Not Found Please Try Again} 12:10, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This is a joke, right? Imrlybord7 13:42, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Barely see you around. Poketape ^Talk 18:47, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I can honestly say this is the first time I have ever seen your name. Smuff 19:02, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Oh yeah, your mainspace count is way below par. Smuff 20:05, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

• This is my second account....Alex Martin Rider ^Talk

Oppose - I've actually never seen you before, so I can't support you. There are far better candidates. Maybe some day.      20:47, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

• Callofduty4?! You know me! You helped put the background up on my wiki that I created! The Task Force 589 wiki. -- Alex Martin Rider ^Talk

Comment You also stole my signature. I thought the whole idea of a signature was to be unique, but you just took it. I don't really like that either. Poketape ^Talk 01:44, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry! I didn't know that you're signature was like that. I can get it changed if you really oppose it. -- Alex Martin Rider ^Talk

• Comment It just seemed to me that signatures were supposed to be unique, and seeing you asked for yours to look like mine with different colors... Poketape ^Talk 18:15, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
• And I'm sorry, do you want me to have it changed? I just love the 8-bit Cpt. Price. -- Alex Martin Rider ^Talk

• • This is off-topic. Please discuss the RfA, not the signature. --Scottie theNerd 18:46, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
• Comment It's true, 8-bit Price is awesome, but I think you should go for something different. Poketape ^Talk 18:41, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Sure, you say you've been here for 2 years, but looking at you Userpage, 344 edits since Febuary 18th 2010? You call that active? Not to mention, I've never seen you around. SSD 天皇陛下萬歳！ 01:54, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support- I support him because he is good with pictures and is friendly. I find that "Oh I haven't seen your name" means nothing. Look, if theres a page with no picture then it's just paragraphs. Remember not every one is on the computer every day. SO your at the right place BUT your at the not at the right time.BravoAlphaSix 03:25, June 30, 2010 (UTC) - User lacks mainspace edits. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

• I had a different account...

I was still talkin' about your current account. 344 edits in 4 months. SSD 天皇陛下萬歳！ 02:02, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

• Not trying to make excuses but I've been gone a lot lately. I actually have a life. Considering that I'll be gone until about noon every day this week for personal reasons.

• Comment -- Okay, I get the point. People on here don't like me, I just wanted to see what others thought of me. I was just hoping that I would get one supporting vote..... Alex Martin Rider ^Talk

• • A lot of people have lives too, and no one's going to criticise that. However, if you haven't been active or committed to the wiki, it's not likely that you'll do much as an admin. --Scottie theNerd 05:53, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Precisely, I wasn't necessarily judging you in any way, just an admin requires a good amount of attention towards the wiki. SSD 天皇陛下萬歳！ 14:04, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - What? Why nominate for an RfA now? I haven't seen you much, your editcount is way way low. I don't think you'll ever become one now. DevilWarrior11207:11, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Wow, Devil. What an unnecessarily mean and stupid thing to say. If failing RFAs was all it took to never become an admin, I don't think anyone would be in a worse position than you. Alex, it's not that nobody likes you. In fact, I've looked through some of your contributions and you seem to be a fine fellow. However, what you have done for the wiki is only a small fraction of what it takes to prove to the community that you can handle adminship. Adminship isn't about liking or disliking people. It's about confidence in their dedication and integrity. Now, I know that a few people might jump down my throat for bringing up edit count, but I'm just going to say that I never expect to see any more users with edit counts below 1,500 become admins, and even 1,500 would be pretty low for an admin. Imrlybord7 07:44, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - "I actually have a life." Is there something you seem to be implying there? Bord was right, people don't hate you, but posting stuff like that on an RfA isn't going to help your philosophy along very well. Smuff 17:42, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Stong Oppose - I've only seen you on, what, twice? 17:06, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Change to neutral,leaning toward Support-Just make more edits.Rampantlion513 16:40, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Replying to the comment above, let's say User A has 6,000 edits, bad behavior, more blog posts than anything, and somewhat a troll. While at least a thousand edits are minimum and User A has more than enough, User A is not fit to be an administrator, while User B has around 500 edits, he shows excellent behavior, reasoning skills and much more. User B does not have the criteria to become an admin (at least a thousand edits) but is more fit to be an admin than User A. While Alex Martin Rider is not User A, saying "Just make more edits" does not mean a user should become an admin just on having "more edits". --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 18:06, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RFA did not pass. Darkman 4 17:54, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

SkullRod

This user is one of the two I will be nominating for adminship. SkullRod is a very respected user who talks with any some users about things. He has also been involved in many community discussions in the War Room about any problems or resolutions. He is friends with many users too and makes flawless edits along the way. SkullRod nearly has 2,200 edits, even though not much but great edits he has made. He is friendly, mature and respected by admins and users. He'll make a great admin that will deal with vandalism exceptionally. DevilWarrior11218:35, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support	1
Neutral	1
Oppose	3

Support - As nominator. DevilWarrior11218:35, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet - I have been bouncing the idea of SkullRod as an admin around in my head for quite a while, actually, but I feel that he isn't quite there yet in terms of comparing to current admins and administrative candidates. Imrlybord7 17:44, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Pending - I think SkullRod would make a great admin, but I'm going to have to think more about this one. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 21:29, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet - Per Imrlybord7. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 21:31, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While SkullRod has the markings of a reliable administrator given his record of solid editing, he hasn't been involved consistently in larger wiki discussions for sufficient time, having only recently beginning to engage with core issues. His consistent edits to mainspace show an eye for detail and willingness to do menial cleanup tasks; both of which are important for an administrator. However, engagement in community discussion has mostly been recent, and I'd like to see more involvement in the future to consolidate an understanding of wikipolicy and how they are made and enforced. On a related note, the nomination description presents few positive qualities and I have had to do a brief background check on the candidate to deliver the above feedback. Sorry to take this RfA on a tangent, but I'd like to criticise the writeup to highlight how we need to take RfAs more seriously:

• The candidate is a very respected user who "talks with some users about things". I'm baffled as to what this could mean.
• "He is friends with many users" is not necessarily a good thing. Experience has shown that picking people who are "friends" with everyone means more chance of being biased. We should be selecting admins based on their capacity to perform admin duties, not because they're friends with lots of users.
• 2,200 edits means nothing, as I have argued numerous times; especially when over 800 edits are blog comments.
• "respected by admins and users" - more concrete evidence of this, please.

While SkullRod is someone I can see as an admin in the near future, I feel that it's too soon to make judgement on his capacity. --Scottie theNerd 16:38, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm going to have to agree with Bord and Scottie on this one, I feel that I myself am not ready for adminship. I've only been here for around 5 months and I do need to participate more in War Room discussions, which has only been a recent addition to my edits. I thank you for my nomination, but for now, I will decline it. Talk?23:28, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Nomination rejected - nice closing statement there, SkullRod.      00:35, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Toilet Bowl Soldier

Hello there, I am Toilet Bowl Soldier. I have been here on this beloved Wiki since December 2009, and I have been editing articles since then. Recently I have cleaned up many articles and tried to make this Wiki a better place. Despite having less than 1,000 edits, I hope people consider giving me a chance of being a sysop. I just want to make this Wiki a better place for you, me, and the rest of the community.

Sincerely - Toilet Bowl Soldier

Support	0
Neutral	0
Oppose	5

Oppose - Sorry. But your editing seems to be sporadic at best. While you want to make the wiki better you didn't explain how you would do that if you were an Administrator. You can make the wiki better even if you are not an Admin. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 14:19, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per CodExpert. DevilWarrior11214:42, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see you as the type of person that would know what they're doing as an admin, you're still pretty new here. Shotrocket6 14:59, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per CodExpert. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 15:37, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Haven't seen much community participation that would reflect appropriate administrator skills. --Scottie theNerd 15:42, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You do make good contributions. A Lonely Nomad 15:53, July 6, 2010 (UTC) Not enough mainspace edits. Shotrocket6 15:55, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawed by Nominator. --Soldier 22:37, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - User withdrew RfA. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 22:16, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Darthkenobi0

Darthkenobi0^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Most of you know me as Darth, Kenobi or Tim. Here on the Call of Duty Wiki, while I do have many social edits, I also edit the mainspace often, making more extensive edits than most (especially overhauls). Beyond that, you can see for yourselves that I help out the wiki as much as I can.

I feel that I could use sysop tools to more effectively and expediently deal with vandals, troll, or potential incidents. I have experience with wiki markup and am able to use most commands and am able to help users identify any problems they are having. I run a wiki myself, so have experience with the basic infrastructure of a wiki. I am quite involved in the War Room, and helped draft the User of the Month vote's new format, and have been very active in the discussion about Administrator requirements and the new medal system, as well as being the author of several other drafts, and involved in the discussions involving voting on RFAs.

I'm usually quite amiable (so I've been told) and am rarely rude. I have a fairly good reputation on the wiki, have reverted a large amount of vandalism, helped in the Overhaul Project, and welcomed many new users. Honestly, I feel that I could use these tools responsibly and effectively, thank you for your time. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Support	10
Neutral	3
Oppose	9

Support -- as nominator -- E^ightO^hE^ight 18:54, June 28, 2010 (UTC) -- Posted as protest, now an official request. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Oppose - Per my vote in his last NfA. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 19:03, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support Great user. Poketape ^Talk 20:47, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure whether to be insulted that I'm part of Eight's ragequit from the wiki, or flattered... <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Neutral - Would be a good late-night sysop, but I'm not really sure. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk)

Oppose - While Darthkenobi0 may have been nominated by someone else this time, I believe the points made only three days ago still stand. tl;dr version: He needs to develop a consistent style of behavior, as conversations such as this are not acceptable. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 01:12, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that my behavior was far from desirable, but I would like to point out the fact that I was baited, and received no block for my reactions (I bluntly stated to Imrlybord7, Chiafriend12, Callofduty4, and Doc.Richtofen that I would happily take a block if they deemed it necessary). And I do acknowledge the consistency argument, but as you might note, I am generally quite polite, and only react to an extreme against blatant trolls and/or flamers, every single of which has received blocks for baiting and trolling. Also, I feel I can calmly handle situations (as I did last night on Rampantlion's blog) in the future, as I have for the most part, in the past. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Oppose- Per Bovellnlmgr 01:14, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would explain your vote beyond "Per Bovell", while I respect his vote, would you please elaborate more upon your own? Thank you. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Support - He's a hoss, what more can i say? Jeffnickers 01:16, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Elaborate please. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Oppose- He shouldn't get adminship because of the fact that he can over hype some times as he did at User talk:TheManOfIron#Let.27s get this straight. if he wants adminship he needs to quit overhyping. Jeez he like my friend who plays Bball with my when its a close games. Wayyy to overhyped. Rampantlion513 02:04, June 29, 2010 (UTC) Vote withdrawn Rampantlion513 02:28, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Change to support-I have seen the good side of Darth and if he doesn't try to obbuse his power as an admin he would make a good admin. Rampantlion513 02:36, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Definitely one of the few users who can make substantial claims to being qualified for adminship. However, attitude and manner is inconsistent and occasionally confrontational, as experienced in the past. While practical-minded and set to get things done, I'm concerned that his approach to his duties could be rash and unnecessarily personal, similar to how Imrlybord7 was. --Scottie theNerd 04:18, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've noticed again that Darthkenobi0 has struck out all his votes on the RfAs for the same reason as last time: there is only "one" person who deserves the position. In my eyes, it's unthoughtful to oppose every candidate in favour of one instead of judging each nomination by their own worth. --Scottie theNerd 04:22, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I actually am not simply favoring that one user, it just happens that there is one I believe is capable of fully meeting the responsibilities of an admin, and that I don't feel those users are, my votes were, by no means, made in comparison against other candidates, simple coincidence and ease of copy and paste, if you would like me to put this onto every RFA I voted oppose on, I will happily do so, to explain. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Why not abstain from voting if you have nothing to say against that particular user? Your voting is practically protest voting,in that it provides no objective criticism or commentary but is opposed based on something they have no control over. --Scottie theNerd 04:37, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This nomination was done as a joke and Darth just recently withdrew a nomination. /justsaying Imrlybord7 13:41, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure most are aware, I replaced Ocho's joke nomination with my own formal request, as provided in the edit summary, a few friends said I should go for it for the feedback. <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Support - I feel you would make a great admin. The reasons I stated when I nominated you previously have remained the same. While admittedly you can go overboard, it isn't a regular thing (though it would be better if it wasn't there at all, of course) and the good you do far outweighs the bad. You would do the wiki good.      21:03, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - A great user, per CoD4 and the nomination. Doc. Richtofen 21:11, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Darth is a great user and an activist in the wiki community. He has started and enacted the RCP & NUW user groups, which I am a part of. He proposes many changes in the War Room and that is more than I can say for the majority of the users in the community. He and I are almost always on late night, performing RCP ops and together have stopped many vandals. I know that if he gets his Admin flags he will think three times before acting on them. He knows the inner workings of the wiki and how get issues resolved. While he can be rash at times, I know that if he gets his Admin flags, his behavior will change. Talk 21:37, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral leaning toward Support - Darth is obviously a great user who has done a lot for the wiki in not much time at all, but I am still weary of his temper and condescension. However, his reaction to the last RFA and subsequent behavior has bolstered my confidence in him. I do not, however, expect to change this vote during this RFA, but if this one does not pass I will almost definitely offer a supporting vote on the next one, provided it is not posted really really frickin' soon. Imrlybord7 00:03, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I just wanted to express my thanks for the great feedback and faith. I also wanted to say that I was toying with the idea before of simply posting my RFA on the last NfA, to express what I think are my good points, but had decided not to, however after EightOhEight's protest postings, I decided to take this opportunity to get feedback from the community to see what I have to improve upon. Once again, thanks to everyone for all the faith (especially from Bovell, who has shown faith in my future candidacy) it means a lot.<Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Strong Support - Per my last RfA support for him. Darth is an excellent user who always tries hard to impress. His edits are untouchable and amazing. His editcount is very high and he's just behind CodExpert. He only arrived in January 2010 and look what's happened with him over the past five months, awesomeness. Per all too. DevilWarrior11207:15, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Darth does what he can for the wiki and its community, he's frequently on IRC, and on the wiki at irregular times. He works hard and is a mature, friendly user who knows his stuff. He'd make a great admin given the fact that he is aware of vandals and how to deal with them, and due to his activity at times when small numbers of users are active, he'd be able to block vandals instead of having to wait till an admin appears. His edits are also very constructive and he has done a lot of work redoing whole pages which were previously in bad condition. - 09:00, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I usually have great confidence in the reliability I can find in Darth, but it is when he acts out and calls others "stupid shithead"s, makes bestiality insults, and is generally rude that I don't think such behavior would be acceptable for an administrator. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 20:06, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I know this won't be that much better, but it wasn't a bestiality insult. It was just pretty much an insult in general. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez ^{Reportin' for duty.} 23:43, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

I think it warrants pointing out that Chia actually felt strongly enough to vote. Anyone with the ability to notice trends will hopefully see the significance there. Imrlybord7 04:26, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - You opposed the other RfAs because you say you see "one cadidate fully capable of meeting the responsibilities of an admin" and you submit one yourself? That kinda defeats the purpose of why you opposed. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 23:17, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Not really... I was saying that I only saw one person who I had faith could fully carry out the duties of an admin, which doesn't contradict my own RFA in any way, it simply means that I think I could do the job well enough, so now it would be two, instead of one. Darthkenobi0^(talk) 23:23, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I think I could do. And as Scottie said, it sounds like your to "oppose every candidate in favour of one instead of judging each nomination by their own worth" and that it "provdes no objective critism based on somehting they have no control over". <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 23:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Ex, that was 808 who nominated him, not himself. Smuff 23:20, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ocho submitted it as a protest, Darth made it into an actual RfA. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 23:21, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Your lack of self control and tendency to react personally to certain situations highlights the fact that you are not to be trusted with administrative powers. -- CoD addict (talk · edits)

They aren't powers, they're tools. Darthkenobi0^(talk) 05:00, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

powerful tools = powers -- CoD addict (talk · edits)

Just for a cheesy example, Batman has powerful tools, but he doesn't have powers. Powerful tools don't always equal powers. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez ^{Reportin' for duty.} 23:43, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Just to use that cheesy example properly (i.e. in a way that is completely contrary to how you just used it), those powerful tools give Batman the ability to do many amazing things he could not otherwise do. Capabilities = powers. Imrlybord7 04:26, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I was going to vote support for you, as you are a GREAT editor who brings up policy changes and War Room topics very oftenly, and generally edits the mainspace a lot, but, after reading Chia's oppose with the links, I will have to oppose you. I was aware that you sometimes have some anger issues, and that's ok, we are all human, but calling other people Stupid Shitheads, Fucktard Shitmonkey and Fuckmonkeys is unacceptable, be the conversation with TMOI or any other editor. Commander W567123daniel^{Wanna Talk?|My Duty|Wassup?} 10:12, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point but could you please not underline and bold those? I did say them but I don't enjoy, and I don't think many others enjoy seeing those words so easily viewable when reading through this page. Darthkenobi0^(talk) 04:07, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I was just trying to really get the point across. Commander W567123daniel^{Wanna Talk?|My Duty|Wassup?} 08:48, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

It was an isolated outburst, sure Darth can take stuff hard, but he has only flipped out on one user. 00:35, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Darth has flipped out on more than one user. *cough* Imrlybord7 04:26, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - My only hope is that you keep trying to uphold yourself with integrity and don't let anger get the best of you. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez ^{Reportin' for duty.} 23:43, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - User fails to control temper at times; may attack other users.   Hax 217    talk-page  02:27, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Extremely strong oppose - This user cannot seem to control himself in many situations, thinks offensive things are funny, insults our Wiki, saying they are full of retarded shitmonkeys, gets angry extremely easily, is sensitive, and is all around annoying. (IMO)--Letlev (Talk) 03:49, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - User can be extremely flamey at times, and does not seem to be able to control his anger. Sactage^{TalkEditcountContribs} 23:46, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Yes he can be flamey at times but give him a chance. He is a good user and has not had any serious violation or else he would not qualify. He is influential and helpful. As well his mainspace edits are high. Besides some temper he is all you could want in an admin. Hell the first time I saw his profile I thought he already was one. His actions in the past do not seem to be still a present issue but rather something that is being dug up to stop him. We should give him a chance we all know he would benefit the wiki as an admin. And having the responsibility of an admin should help him calm down and stop future temper problems. If not his admin status can be revoked with the press of a button. Nobody can be perfect and Darth is certainly not. But I would say all he has done good far outweighs all the little he has done wrong. Foxtrot12 07:42, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Some temper is what you don't want in an admin. You expect an admin to be calm, impersonal and professional. Very few admins that we currently have show that consistently, and a few have gotten into some trouble for making things too personal. I fear that Darthkenobi0, while certainly influential and knowledgeable, does not quite have the patience to deal with user issues in a professional manner. A little outburst and the entire admin team is discredited. --Scottie theNerd 18:25, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

He has shown some temper in the past and with great power comes great responsibility sorry that is the best I could think of. Being an admin he should be able to realize he has to get over it and stop. I think that by being an admin he would think twice and be reminded of his position before he loses his temper and makes things personal. Maybe you are right that he will not have patience but with all he has done for the wiki and alll he could do that is a risk we should be willing to take. I have a feeling that may be used against me but no matter. We should give him a chance. Because we all know he would make a decent admin what most people are scared of is his attitude when he gets angry. We have to hope and probably get his assurance that he will keep things under control and civil. If he does that what do we have to lose?Foxtrot12 18:48, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Nomination Closed - User has become inactive.      02:23, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Poketape

Poketape^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Hello everbody! I, Poketape, nominate myself for 'cratship. I am a very dedicated user and have been here for more than a year now. I am always watching the recent contributions and have proven myself knowledgeble in CoD information. (After all, this is the CoD wiki.) I am always willing to help out new users and am always active in discussions. With the arrival of what so far appears to be 3-5 admins, I believe another crat is necessary and that I should be this crat. Thank you. —Unsigned comment was added by Poketape

Support	7
Neutral	0
Oppose	6

Support - We need another crat. And sorry for quoting Darthkenobi, but the glove fits for Poke. Slowrider7 20:14, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Always responsible, neutral, friendly and can get stuff done. He would make a great crat. Doc. Richtofen 21:14, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per Doc Richtofen. Talk 23:01, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He's proffesional, friendly, and active in the War Room. He is a fine choice for Cratship. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 23:03, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Doc.- 23:55, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Doc. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 02:18, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There are multiple admins who I would trust much more with 'cratship than Poketape. Although he is generally polite and friendly, he does not conduct himself in a particularly professional manner, and 'crats should basically be perfect. When I think about who is most like Chia and Saint, Poketape is certainly not a name that comes to mind. Imrlybord7 02:55, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet - You're a very friendly user and have never been caught up in any bad conflicts. However, in my opinion, I believe there are a few more users who deserve crat just a bit more than you. Nevertheless, if you become just a bit more active and voice your opinion regularly you will surely become a crat one day. E.TALE ^Barracks Headquarters 03:14, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

The position of bureaucrat is not something to be deserved. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 10:58, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The nomination does not convince me of the need to have another bureaucrat or why the candidate should be given authority over his peers. While Poketape has been visibly active in the recent past, I have not found it easy to work with him and don't think I would work as positively with Poketape as I would with others. --Scottie theNerd 11:07, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet - I feel there are better candidates for adminship. I feel it is OK to do a direct comparison to Bovell (considering he also has a RfB open), and Bovell comes out on top, with the impeccable way he portrays himself. I don't feel you will never become a bureaucrat, just not now.      11:16, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There are far more other people who deserve 'cratship than Poketape. In the future when people think he's worthy enough, I'll support you. JUst at this time, it won't happen. I'm saying this not badly just as a user. Sorry, if anything I say makes you disappointedDevilWarrior112 15:26, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Not Yet - I don't think that we need more than one new bureaucrat, and I feel that Bovell should be that new bureaucrat. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 16:19, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Please give the RfB votes the respect they deserve and provide additional reasons besides "Per ...." .      20:45, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with agreeing with what another user has already written. If it's "disrespectful" for someone to write a comprehensive comment and thus prevent anyone else from voting, I'm quite happy copy/pasting the reasons to everyone's votes above. --Scottie theNerd 10:34, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Good guy and good editor. Bovell will definitely win cratship but another will still help. Most of the oppose votes say that others deserve it more at the time not that he would not be a good 'crat and some support the idea he will become a 'crat but not now. If that is the case why wait for the inevitable? I support. Foxtrot12 07:57, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bovell will obviously become a 'crat. 16-0 at the moment. DevilWarrior11219:34, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well of course he will win cratship he has enough supporters and no one would even bother opposing him because the effort would be in vein. But is there some kind of limit on how many crats there can be at a time? If there is inform me. But if not. Foxtrot12 00:04, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

That was quite rude and unneeded Devil. Also, Cratship isn't a prize or reward for winning. They are extra tools to help the wiki. Doc. Richtofen 17:33, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The votes are pretty evenly split, and as such there is no consensus either way. Poketape will not be receiving a bureaucrat flag at this time. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 01:42, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Bovell

Bovell^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I, CodExpert, hereby nominate Bovell for the position of Bureaucrat. He is a very dedicated user to the wiki since February 15, 2009. He is very active in most War Room discussions and is a very intelligent, proffesional, and active Administrator. Bovell has shown himself completely worthy of being a Bureaucrat by being a nearly flawless user, he is definately one of the Administrators that are most wrothy in a user rights upgrade. And with these arrival of a large amount of Administrators, I think that the wiki would need another Bureaucrat. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 21:16, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

I accept my nomination. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 23:17, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support	18
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support - As nominator. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 21:16, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per nomination. He has always acted in a professional manner and has never acted out in a manner that would suggest otherwise. Always acts very mature on the wiki. Talk 22:57, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support per nomination. He's a great user. Poketape ^Talk 23:25, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Bovell is a great contributor, he acts properly and he is very active in Forum discussions. Everything he does is professional and done correctly. I think that with the new adminstrators coming in, we will need more Bureaucrats and Bovell defnately fits the spot. Talk?

Support - - Per nomination. - 23:56, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Bovell is always a mature, friendly editor, and he'll make a great bureaucrat. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 02:50, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I feel that Bovell is currently the best choice for a new 'crat. Intelligent, well-written, professional, courteous, kind, and insightful. Imrlybord7 02:57, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I have had very productive sessions with Bovell. He is one of the few sysops who go about their duties in the community by working with policies and providing neutral, objective perspectives on sensitive issues. He is unafraid to caution users for wrong behaviour or correct his peers for misunderstandings and misconceptions. My conversations on IRC with him show a strong regard for the betterment of the wiki and a respectful attitude to all users. He would be, in my opinion, of the best people to take a leading role among admins. --Scottie theNerd 11:12, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Bovell has been on the wiki for a long time and clearly knows what he is doing. He conducts himself in a mature and intelligent manner and his large influence over the wiki (which is a good thing) would make him a fine bureaucrat.      11:16, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - If I say per Scottie, will he kill me? Either way, Per Scottie theNerd. Sactage^{TalkEditcountContribs} 11:58, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per nomination.Insane281 12:18, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Bovell is a great contribuator to this wiki. DevilWarrior11215:19, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Please give the RfB votes the respect they deserve and provide additional reasons besides "Per ...." .      20:45, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Flawless user. Always Neutral, responsible and without any known flaws. Doc. Richtofen 20:52, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. --TheManOfIron (Talk) 16:24, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Kind, mature, and respectful editor. I think he deserves to be a 'crat. Happy Boy |Talk21:22, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I know this is kind of extreme, but Bovell is a near perfect user. Just be more active in discussions. —Unsigned comment was added by Slowrider7

Comment - Should an admin close this? It seems to be unanimous, and I doubt 17 editors will randomly come in with good reasons not to crat him. —Unsigned comment was added by TheManOfIron

In the words of Scottie: "RfA (or RFB)s must remain open for the minimum time. There's no reason to waiver that requirement." My RfA had 24 supports, it waited for two weeks until darkman closed it. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 16:09, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Also consider that votes from sixteen out of potentially thousands of registered editors isn't exactly a "unanimous" decision. It's imperative that we follow procedure instead of trying to take shortcuts. --Scottie theNerd 16:44, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Intelligent, kind, mature, rational, and all of the above. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 17:57, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support- Per all. Nice user and very smart. Munchable901|TaLk? 23:43, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - With all the votes in support and nothing brought up to suggest that he wouldn't be a good pick for the role, Bovell will be given bureaucratic rights momentarily. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 01:42, July 20, 2010 (UTC)