Call of Duty Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Crazy sam10 (2)

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

Request for Adminship: Crazy sam10 Submitted: 00:00, March 25, 2012 (UTC), by Callofduty4 Closed: 23:21, April 1, 2012 (UTC), by Callofduty4 Result: Successful

Crazy sam10^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I am nominating Crazy sam10 for adminship:

This is Sam’s 2nd RfA. After he put forward his first one, somewhat rapidly, he was able to get a lot of constructive criticism on how he could improve to become an admin.

I feel since this time he has been able to improve on these things, he has done so firstly via his chat mod status, whilst not directly improved upon it, he has had still no complaints arise from it (which is rather astonishing considering he is one of the most veteran chatmods we have). He is routinely undoing bans which have expired, and recently has decided to clean up lingering bans which should not still be in effect.

• Sam's log of user rights changes
• An example of Sam dutifully warning a user of being lagbanned, and notifying when the ban has been removed

Secondly he has put plenty of his points forward in the War Room, including setting up several forums of his own where he sought community consensus on various things. This shows a participation in the community and also a will to improve the wiki through improvements made via community consensus.

• Sam's forum edits
• A forum which Sam put forward, which ended up successful

Thirdly he has improved his edit count, whilst many of his mainspace edits are simple vandal checks/minor edits his filespace edits are what I feel have contributed the most to helping the wiki, mainly in the addition of images and adding transparency to existing images, an example of this is the World at War Pack-a-Punch weapons page, and more recently on some of the attachment pages as well. Expanding on images he has also done a lot of work about images, including his forum about image effects, and templates for image quality and bad images.

• Sam's editcount, showing good edits across the board
• Sam's mainspace edits
• Sam's file edits
• Sam's forum about image effects

Sam will make a good addition to the admin team for the reasons provided above, and also with the fact that Sam already knows how to administrate a wiki - he is an admin on Nukapedia as well. Not to mention, Sam is on regularly at a time where there are not many admins on - around 11am - 4pm GMT, which is currently only really kept up by Raven's wing, and while Raven does a fine job, it comes without a doubt that another admin who can be on at this time will be of huge benefit.

Looking at his personality, Sam is a friendly person who is calm and professional in his demeanour, and is always willing to help people with any problems they might have. In other words, he has the mindset ideal for an administrator.

So please consider these points, if you thought this was TL;DR then too bad, if you read through and looked at all the links, thank you for your patience! Please leave your thoughts and votes below. —Unsigned comment was added by Callofduty4

• I was told I'd need to say whether I accept this or not, which I do.
  

  Crazy sam10 • Talk

  
  00:05, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support — As nominator, Sam has proven multiple times that he is suitable for this job.      00:00, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
2. Support — I feel that the Call of Duty Wikia will greatly improve from the adition of this user, and will benefit all. Argorrath _{おしゃべり}00:04, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
3. Support — I always tend to forget Sam isn't a Admin anyway so i think Sam should be a Admin so Per Nom.Arbiter Talk to Rarity

   Not really a good reason why. Please specify The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 00:17, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Looks like a reason to me.      01:16, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

4. Support — Per nom _{added at 00:42, March 25, 2012 (UTC)}Rose Pichu  00:08, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Users need to give a reason. The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 00:17, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Per X is a reason.      01:16, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   I originally had no reason, until added later (which I now have specified) Rose Pichu  04:50, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

5. Strong Support — Sam is a valuable asset for his administrator-starved time zone. He is on frequently and is always reliable, whether it be removing drop shadows from images or checking COD:CHAT/B for ban removals. I fully support the community granting him administrator tools, as I know he'll serve almost-perfectly. Also I love my Scoots.
   

   Vera ^{Talk to me.}

   
   00:15, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
6. Support — All the time, I see him helping out new users and we could definitely use more admins in that timeslot. Phillycj 00:30, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
7. Weak Support — The well written RfA swayed me as it provided very good reasons as to why Sam should be an admin. The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 00:35, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
8. Support — I believe Sam and the the wiki will benefit from him becoming an Admin, and has seen he is worthy of Adminship. Otherwise, per Argorrath. Hiptechboy 01:00, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
9. Strong Support — Well, the nomination says it all. He's active, does a lot of helpful edits, maintains the chat in good shape, generally does nothing other than helping the wiki here... I'm frankly confused as to how this guy isn't an admin yet. Commander Shepard: ^{"You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!"} 02:25, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
10. Support — I'm going to have to agree with the nomination. Sam is an excellent user that I have never had any problems with. He has clearly demonstrated an understanding of how the wiki works and how to deal with and educate other users, a trait I would prefer in an administrator. I have never seen Sam get into any trouble, and I seriously doubt any trouble would come from him becoming an administrator. While I'm not too sure of whether we necessarily need another administrator, I'm confident that Sam will show his prowess and excellent ability to manage the wiki quickly. Shotrocket6 02:36, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
11. Support — Per Shotrocket6. http://i.imgur.com/vm7BQ.png 02:46, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
12. Support — Sam has been a valuable asset to the wiki for a long time. He will do good with these new tools.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}04:56, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
13. Support — All around great and friendly user that could only benefit the wiki as an admin. Also, it's nice to see a 'bipartisan' RfA for someone who's a Chatmod. _Sp3c^Talk_ 05:06, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
14. Support — Per nom --Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 05:25, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
15. Weak Support — While I am somewhat unsure about Sam's abilities, his time zone and overall work on this wiki gets my support. I believe he can do well with sysop tools. DarkMetroid567^okay 05:39, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
16. Support — He knows what he is doing as well, Being that he is an admin on Fallout but mainly Per the nominator. Twig _(Talk) 07:25, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
17. Support — Sam is a brilliant user, and it is kinda annoying to see pretty much only one admin in S:RC. --MLGisNot4Me ^talk 07:49, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
18. Support — I would completely trust Sam with admin powers. http://i.imgur.com/PjvXR.pngStrike http://i.imgur.com/IZwoa.png Talkz 07:53, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
19. Support — Experienced user. As Callofduty4 has said, he has made good improvements. Would be a great asset for the wiki if Sam had admin tools. TheDocRichtofen (Talk) 08:38, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
20. Support — Valuable member of the community who can obviously handle the responsibilities. Raven's wing ^Talk09:28, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

    Strong Support — I have known Sam for quite a while, to about May 2010. When he was an Admin at the Vault, he knew how to do his job, and here, he continually shows dedication, quality and the drive to do more. He knows what he's doing and it shows. In short, I say yay. TWTIA^Talk 13:42, March 25, 2012 (UTC) User lacks MS edits. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 15:23, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

    Panzer told me to use COD:IAR TWTIA^Talk 16:55, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

    I was told to cross out your vote by Carb. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 17:12, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

21. Support — Sam is an excellent editor, he is always monitoring recent changes, correcting the filespace, alerting admins where files need to be deleted. He is a amazing moderator and I don't see any better candidate for adminship at this time. And now I won't be the Fucking New Walrus :D Redskin-26 16:57, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
22. Support — Per Nom and allhttp://i.imgur.com/VwuEI.pngSXe Fiend · talkhttp://i.imgur.com/VwuEI.png17:07, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
23. Support — Glad to support an experienced user who knows the tools of the trade. Sam is a dedicated and hardworking editor. Lyra_(SPNKR)^{is the bo$$} 17:08, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
24. Support — I have nothing to say that hasn't been said already. Sam would make a fine addition to the Admin team. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 17:12, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
25. Support — per all N7 TC 19:02, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
26. Support — Of course, per all. Reznov115^Talk

    Support — Per all. I'm actually suprised he's not an Admin. --I don't need a fancy signature. 21:08, March 25, 2012 (UTC) User lacks mainspace edits PotatOS^{Wanna Test?|My Own Test Chambers|Ohaithar} 21:11, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

27. Support — He seems to be a friendly and nice contributor who could benefit of getting an extra set of tools. 1358 ^(Talk) 11:25, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
28. Support — Per all. elmo's ramblings 17:17, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
29. Support — Per nom. I'm surprised he isn't an admin already. 19:48, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
30. Strong Support — Per nom. Crunchastic^talk 18:24, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
31. Support — Per Nom, Sam is an exceptional editor that would be fine with the tools. Not to mention I usually see Sam talking to one admin or another mainly for tasks that he can't do. http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 17:30, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
32. Weak Support — The thought of Sam becoming admin is definitely that of a positive, and he will certainly benefit. (as would quite a few users tbh) He is sufficently active enough in all aspects and areas of the wiki and has the experience of being an admin on the Fallout wiki which I know for a fact would bring fairly good perks to the wiki, having a bunch of users who are admins on other wikis (like Smuff and CoD4 on the MLP wiki, Sam on the Fallout Wiki, GeorgieGibbons on the Sims Wiki, biblomaniac15 on Wikipedia as a few examples) so in short, this would be a benefit. The only concern I have is that "one leads onto another" so after Sam I fear more successful RfAs would come. That's not a problem of course, but could result in carnage with lots of new adminstrators. Sam is the perfect choice for new admin, so I can't help but at least support. (YL for next admin!) YELLOWLUCARIO ^TALK  15:32, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

    Perhaps after this there will be more RfAs. But it all depends on the user getting voted, nothing else, and I honestly feel that by advertising yourself on 'my' RfA is a poor sign. This is my RfA, to asses my capabilities as an admin, so I'd prefer if users were not using it as some form of way to promote themselves.

    

    Crazy sam10 • Talk

    

    15:42, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

    Per Sam, not to mention it makes you look very desperate for attention. Redskin-26 17:05, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

33. Strong Support — Per all http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m119/steveisgreatsb/nerv.jpgCodfan5695 ^Talkhttp://i634.photobucket.com/albums/uu62/MawsCM/Rei%20Ayanami/033.jpg17:02, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
34. Support — I do believe Sam should be Admin because I have seen his editing, how he does as a Chat Mod, and your reasoning for him is extremely accurate. I believe he'll do great if he's an admin. Angel of Anarchy _(Jeremy14) · Talk!21:21, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral — I think that while you are an all around good editor as you are now, you could use a little IRC experience. EDIT: Since people don't seem to be understanding my vote, I added that in.Metl^Talk 04:33, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   What does IRC have to do with being an admin? http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 04:38, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   IRC=/= how to qualify a person for adminship.Argorrath _{おしゃべり}04:41, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   An admin was deranked because of an issue on IRC, so it should matter. Metl^Talk 04:50, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   If it worked like that, most admins would have a desysop forums up their arses, and that is not the case.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}04:58, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Okay, what? So does that mean we desysop Poketape because he's not on IRC? Since when does being on IRC even matter? As per what the person I thought was Shot said, how do you even know if you're not even in there? _Sp3c^Talk_ 04:58, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   ....yes, let's ban admins because they don't use IRC. If you actually looked at my vote instead of jump to conclusions, you would know that I said he is good as he is now. I simply recommend he get more experience in the area of IRC. No, I don't use IRC all day, it's just my two cents that he could use more experience on it. Of he's using now, alright, good. Metl^Talk 05:15, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   I did read it, and you're not granting him a vote simply because you don't see him on IRC which you are rarely on. Also, you never explained what 'good' meant, is he a good chatmod, user, editor? Please explain your votes so you don't end up sounding like you don't know what you're talking about, which is clearly the case now. Overall, you can't blame someone for something you do, which is just plain wrong and overall you just end up looking like an ass. _Sp3c^Talk_ 05:22, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Besides Sam shouldn't just be looked at his Chat?IRC service as his edits, and contribution is the biggest contributing factor to why he should be admin IMOArgorrath _{おしゃべり}05:03, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but what? Even so, Sam is on IRC all the time...PotatOS^{Wanna Test?|My Own Test Chambers|Ohaithar} 04:39, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   I stand by my vote nonetheless. Metl^Talk 04:50, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   How can you stand by it if Dan just killed it.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}05:10, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   No words can't express, and with all due respect, how stupid and baseless the point in this vote is.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}04:44, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   I love how you say "With all due respect" before that. Again, I stand by my vote. Metl^Talk 04:50, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   What goddamn point? 1.- Poketape nor CoaZ nor Shotrocket6 are in IRC all the frikkin' day, and they are exceptional admins. 2.-You are not over IRC all the goddamn day, so you don't either know how he needs more IRC experience. And number 3.- Sam is always at IRC, so try to search up more information instead of basing your votes into baseless assumptions.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}04:56, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   How about instead of pointlessly raging at me over my vote, you explain yourself nicely? Metl^Talk 05:08, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Wasn't the three points I just mentioned fuckin' enough?.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}05:10, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   While his vote was a unbased, uninformed and ignorant, there is no need to attack him. The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 05:44, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, it is point enough, but you can explain yourself nicer than just blindly and pointlessly raging. Metl^Talk 05:20, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Metl, you must explain how (in your eyes) not being on IRC enough can inhibit his ability to be a good admin, Shotrocket6 is almost never in IRC yet he is often called the "Community Admin". Please explain your reasoning. http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 04:54, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Not being on IRC enough means there is a lack of communication between this admin and the other admins. I never said it would inhibit his abilities as an admin, it would just be a barrier in case an admin or another user wants to get a hold of him, and wants a response not 12 hours from then, but 3 minutes from then. Metl^Talk 05:08, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   There's a thing called Chat...And...There's always the talk page...Revolutionary I know... _Sp3c^Talk_ 05:11, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   You barely read any of that post, didn't you? Metl^Talk 05:20, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5mLjKI968g http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 05:12, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Explain. Metl^Talk 05:22, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   I'll explain Metl. You're being a fucking idiot (and no, I don't give a shit if that violates UTP, I'm trying to get the message we're all trying to get through your head). http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 05:26, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   MY HERO _Sp3c^Talk_ 05:27, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Someone give this man a medal.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}05:28, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Um, what's the point you're trying to make here? You're wrong - Sam is on IRC all the time. And how would you even be able to tell, you're hardly on IRC yourself. If you're going to vote blindly then I would suggest not voting - or not voting blindly and asking somebody who is on IRC all the time who can actually provide evidence about Sam's activity on IRC. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 05:13, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   My point is with my response to Smil. Metl^Talk 05:20, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Not only is Sam on IRC a large amount of the time (I possess logs to prove it), there's no reason someone needs to go on IRC to be an administrator. It's like saying I need to learn how to fight in hand-to-hand combat if I want to become a software developer. There's no correlation between the two. User:Sactage/s.js 05:17, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Read my original vote for reference. Metl^Talk 05:22, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   You also have yet to acknowledge that you're wrong. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 05:24, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   And, Sactage addressed your vote, stop telling us to refer to your vote. As you said, if you actually read what we were writing, you would know. _Sp3c^Talk_ 05:27, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Alright, so I am wrong. I am still staying neutral on this. Metl^Talk 05:28, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   If your wrong and your reasons aren't valid...then you need a new reason to stay neutral.Argorrath _{おしゃべり}05:30, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   WHY?! You just acknowledged that he was perfect for it! WHAT IS WRONG THIS TIME </RAEG> _Sp3c^Talk_ 05:31, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   You need to provide a reasoning as to why you're neutral - otherwise you're vote is invalid. All you seem to be doing is being neutral to prove some sort of point to us, of which you're doing nothing for the candidate and pretty much ruining this rfa. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 05:36, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   After reading this huge block of text, all I've seen is a several users bash a user on his vote. He's admitted he's wrong; he can be neutral now. No need to bully someone for someone's view, even if it was wrong. You're beating a dead horse now. Move on. Lyra_(SPNKR)^{is the bo$$} 17:00, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   To the contrary, the conversation here has given Metl no legitimate points to have any form of opposition/neutrality towards the RFA. It makes the neutral vote, rather pointless. TheDocRichtofen (Talk) 18:41, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   Per 1337, enough is enough. Sgt. S.S. 20:49, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

2. Neutral leaning towards Support — While Sam is an extremely valuable editor, the nominator didn't completely convince me as to why we need another Administrator right now. I am sometimes online on said time period, and I believe the current Administrative team does a nice job during that time. Its not like a lot happens during said period anyway PotatOS^{Wanna Test?|My Own Test Chambers|Ohaithar} 19:07, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

   It is not a bad idea to have another administrator covering a time period when few others are available. If said other administrators are not online at that time, and a crisis comes about, it would be extremely beneficial to have someone like Sam take care of it. You said yourself he is an excellent editor, so I don't see the logic in a neutral vote if your only basis for uncertainty is whether he is really "needed." Shotrocket6 04:05, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

3. Neutral leaning towards Oppose — While Sam is a good editor, is active when most admins aren't and he is an admin on another wiki, it appears (to me) that he hasn't been very active as of late, and with Redskin just becoming an admin, I'm not sure that he should become an admin at this moment. Conqueror of all Zombies 20:12, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

   I beg to differ. TheDocRichtofen (Talk) 21:00, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

   Link doesn't work.. Conqueror of all Zombies 21:05, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

   I think I just fixed it.

   

   Crazy sam10 • Talk

   

   21:16, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

   If Redskin lives in a different time zone than Sam, it just improves the time zone argument. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 17:24, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not Yet — While the nomination is very well-written, I honestly don't see the need for another addition to the admin team, not so soon after Redskin's RfA passed. Sgt. S.S. 19:37, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

   "Not to mention, Sam is on regularly at a time where there are not many admins on - around 11am - 4pm GMT, which is currently only really kept up by Raven's wing, and while Raven does a fine job, it comes without a doubt that another admin who can be on at this time will be of huge benefit." Rose Pichu  19:47, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

   Oh boy, here comes Sgt. S.S. once again with his tried-and-true reasoning of "we don't need more admins." Tell me, S.S., when is another administrator needed? Shotrocket6 19:55, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

   I'd just like to point out that Redskin and I have different time zones, whilst our time periods do cross I am active whilst he otherwise busy, basically what it said in the nom, I'm most active during a low admin time period.

   

   Crazy sam10 • Talk

   

   19:58, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

   In simpler terms, you could almost count sam and redskin as one user :P Rose Pichu  20:02, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

   SR6: Certainly not when another user was made an admin only about a week ago. Sgt. S.S. 20:12, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

   As I stated, I can cover a time zone that admin cannot cover. It's basically irrelevant whether Redskin or not is an admin at this point in time as he will not even be covering the time zone that I can cover. To be exact, he is GMT -5, so whilst it may be 7PM here, it would be 3PM there, meaning for he will only just be getting back, but will have me, and I have been online for the past 12 hours. So as you can see Redskins newly gained admincy does not enter into mine as if I gain admincy I will be entering a time slot different to his, and in fact will likely be going off soon after he comes online.

   

   Crazy sam10 • Talk

   

   20:21, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

   (reset indent)You're acting like if we have one more administrator, the world will explode. Let me tell you, it won't. The entire notion of "we have too many administrators" as an oppose vote should be disallowed; we can never really have too much help. User:Sactage/s.js 20:32, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

   You're putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that we have too many admins? Sgt. S.S. 20:35, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

   "I honestly don't see the need for another addition to the admin team"

   - You

   Question is - are you trolling?      20:50, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

   S.S.: I think you'd say the same thing if it was two weeks, or a month, or several months. The reasoning is invalid. Shotrocket6 20:53, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

   Cod4: No need ≠ too many. And no, I'm not trolling. Sgt. S.S. 17:17, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

   Then explain why there is no need.      17:33, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

   Did I see this coming. When is the last time you haven't used "too many admins"/"no need for another one" argument in an RfA? - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 17:26, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

   Redskin was made an admin only a week ago. For this reason, I feel that another addition in such a short space of time is unnecessary. That is my reasoning, and I stand by it. Sgt. S.S. 17:32, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

   What the hell does it matter that Redskin was made an admin X days ago? What is your point? Your reasoning is poor.      17:36, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not questioning your opinion (and by the way, if Sam would be able to cover a time zone that Redskin doesn't that argument is pretty much invalid), but just pointing out that I haven't seen you give another argument in an RfA since Raven's wing's RfA. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 17:34, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

   Alright, to answer SR6's question of "when do we need more admins": I think that an RfA is appropriate if A. a large influx of traffic hits the wiki (like when a new CoD comes out) or B. another admin goes inactive. This RfA does not fit either of those scenarios, therefore I am opposing. Sgt. S.S. 17:39, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

   In response to your scenario A - well, you're just wrong. It doesn't matter if traffic is increasing, decreasing, staying the same, we can use all of the help we can get

   In response to scenario B - well that fits in nicely with your idea that "there are too many admins", which you try and make it seem like you don't think. But if you didn't think that, then you wouldn't worry about your scenario B. You have contradicted your own argument.      17:45, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

   Just to clear up the whole time zone thing me and Sam's periods on the wiki cross, we are often on at the same time, but at times when he is offline I am still online and at times before I am online he is online. Together we span a large period of time. :P Redskin-26 00:09, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Comments/Questions

• Little note from me, please remember to use # in front of your : as I had to just add a few to that debate in the neutral section. Thanks.
  

  Crazy sam10 • Talk

  
  13:28, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
• This is open for 2 weeks right?
  

  Crazy sam10 • Talk

  
  14:14, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • Usually, yes. YOU MUST WAIT FOR IT SAMALOO!!! http://i.imgur.com/vm7BQ.png 14:26, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
• Once again, on behalf of everyone again, there is no such thing as "too many admins" or that an addition to the team would not be beneficial. Of course it will be beneficial, don't be so stupid. Judge the user on whether they themselves are capable of the job at hand. I think it may be a good idea for this to actually be written on future RFAs, just in case anyone forgets. TheDocRichtofen (Talk) 20:59, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • Since you have stated it is not beneficial. I wonder, does this invalidate the oppose or is such a reason still valid but non-constructive?
    

    Vera ^{Talk to me.}

    
    21:58, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
    • It is definately not constructive, that much is obvious. Whether it makes a valid point is a different question. Technically we can't ever have too many, and it doesn't damage us if we have "too many", as all it will do will decrease workload and be used to try to stop the next RFA from passing. TheDocRichtofen (Talk) 06:38, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
      • Once again, I never said we have too many admins. I said that since Redskin was made an admin only about a week ago, I don't see the need for another admin at this time. Big difference. Sgt. S.S. 17:19, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
        • But when the RfA's over, it'll be 3 weeks between it. And they're rarely on at the same time so it wouldn't have made a difference. Phillycj 17:37, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
          • Three weeks isn't that long, you know. Why can't anyone here just accept that I am opposing this RfA, and am not going to change my mind? Sgt. S.S. 17:41, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
            • Because the logic behind it is flawed. Phillycj 17:43, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
            • Azuris and I were made bureaucrats within an hour of each other. Your timeframe point is flawed and it all adds up to one travesty of an argument.      17:47, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
• Let me get something out in the open here. I do not support this RfA, and I don't know why the hell people can't just accept that and are making such a song and dance about it. I, personally, do not believe that another admin is necessary at this moment in time. No matter how much you try, you are not going to sway me, so I suggest you just stop. Sgt. S.S. 17:56, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
  • We're not going to stop. Either improve your flawed arguments or expect to be questioned like you are now.      18:20, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
  • Per Callofduty4. TheDocRichtofen (Talk) 14:41, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - with a huge majority and little evidence of any further change to the votes, this RfA is being closed early, and is successful. Well done, Sam.      23:21, April 1, 2012 (UTC)