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

Contents 1 Recent Changes Patrollers and New User Welcomers 2 Call of Duty Wiki Clan 3 Alliance to stop Akimbo 1887s 4 B.olt A.ction R.ifle L.over's 5 The Gun Pimpers 6 Zombie Slayers 7 Admins' Pets 8 Admins' Pets 9 Official Firearm Experts 10 Ask A Veteran 11 AC-130 Lovers 12 User:Advancedwarfighter/Explosives_and_Launchers_Specialists 13 AC-130 Lovers 14 The Neutralists 14.1 Voting

Recent Changes Patrollers and New User WelcomersEdit

A usergroup dedicated to patrolling recent changes in order to stop vandalism and trolling immediately. We would also welcome all new users. Although some users already perform these tasks, this would be organized in order to improve response times and provide better responses to vandalism. To be known as RCP and NUW. Darthkenobi0^{BlogTalkContributions} 22:33, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Note: this group does not yet exist

Support	5
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support - As nominator. Darthkenobi0^{BlogTalkContributions} 22:33, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Most of the changes I've made have been providing response to vandalism and welcomes to new Users. Raven's wing ^Talk14:43, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Good thing to have even though i already do it. EvilGRAHAM 0^{Mmmm Free Goo!} 22:45, March 28, 2010 (UTC) User lacks mainspace edits. Poketape ^Talk 03:44, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - It would be a good thing to have, but doesn't everyone already do that? Lt. Dunn (talk) 22:52, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Yes Cpl. Dunn but this way we'll have a userbox and there could be discussion about vandalism (possibly the consequences, and the definitions?). Also, thanks for the support guys. Darthkenobi0^{BlogTalkContributions} 22:59, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I want to start helping the wiki more than I have been, and this group seems like the perfect place to start. Improving response times to both of these issues would be an extremely good thing Sactage 23:34, March 28, 2010 (UTC) User lacks mainspace edits. Poketape ^Talk 03:44, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support- I made a load of edits this January that undid some complete deletion of text in a document, resulting in banning of several vandals and IP addresses. I think a dedicated user group that sifted through all of the articles for vandalism would be costly for time, but would make this wiki much much better HeatedPete 15:54, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Instead of a user group, it could be in the Call of Duty Wiki editspace.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  17:18, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - update, to all who wish to view and/or join the group visit the group here. Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 23:34, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Support - I have decided that it would be a great group to have. Lt. Dunn (Talk) 15:08, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Nomination Complete, Usergroup is now Official Poketape ^Talk 18:39, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Call of Duty Wiki ClanEdit

This is the wiki's official wiki clan. It is a group in which the users here can game together. It has relevance. The clan has rules and requirements ready and set out. It has twenty-plus members. It has been around for at least a month. All it needs is to become an official usergroup. Doc. Richtofen 22:47, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support	7
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support - As nominator. Doc. Richtofen 22:47, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nominator. Darthkenobi0^{BlogTalkContributions} 22:55, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - We are a Clan from this wiki. Let's get more people to know about it! W567123daniel 14:50, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Doc. By the way Doc, if I'm not already in it, can I join? Lt. Dunn (talk) 22:50, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Where do I sign up?Dolten 22:54, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

sUPPORT- I'm in hooha --^{T C E B} 17:22, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support This group is relevant. Poketape ^Talk 18:39, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Nomination Complete Usergroup official. Poketape ^Talk 03:55, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Alliance to stop Akimbo 1887sEdit

My usergroup was created in Late 2009, has 50 members and is a great group. DevilWarrior11217:57, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support	1
Neutral	0
Oppose	3

Support - As nominator. DevilWarrior11217:57, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Do you have a subpage for it, or is it based on a blog? -- EightOhEight 18:02, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Subpage AND Blog. DevilWarrior11218:11, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Please actually sign so we can check mainspace edits. Remember, it's just 4 tildes. Poketape ^Talk 03:32, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think there should be a group opposing weapons. They were put in the game to be used. Poketape ^Talk 03:32, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose This is just a fancy way of complaning. Dolten Let's Talk

Oppose - Per Poketape CoD_BEAST 23:07, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Failed - No consensus made.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  22:01, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

B.olt A.ction R.ifle L.over'sEdit

This user group was actually proposed and created By Cpl. Dunn. There are two pages for this group:

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/User:Cpl._Dunn/Bolt-Action_Rifle_Lovers and

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Cpl._Dunn/New_usergroup

Support	5
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support - As nominator. --^{T C E B} 17:28, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Gen.Cain? Cpt.Z 21:07, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - no reason why not, it's really just a 'fan club' and it'll allow social discussions. Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 23:27, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I just made it to be a "fan club", as Darthkenobi0 called it. Just like SPAS-12 lovers. Lt. Dunn (Talk) 12:45, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Just to let everyone know, apply at the first link up there. I won't check the blog. Lt. Dunn Talk 14:15, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Like the spas lovers but with bolt action rifles. Poketape ^Talk 04:01, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Passed - Group is now an official Usergroup.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  21:58, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

The Gun PimpersEdit

We have recived guns from many people, and because Call of Duty is basically a "You get gun. You shoot German/Jap/Russian/Gangster/Italian." It makes perfect sense to put it on as a recreational group.

Support	5
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support- As nominator Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Comment- Thanks for All of this support! (sarcasticly) Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Support - I love the app, and since we've got SPAS-12 Lovers as a group, why not the Gun Pimpers? Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 19:10, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Great group, support all the way. Mmm, Crispy... 18:42, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Good idea. Can I join? 23:51, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Could this group be limited to only modify/make guns based on ones seen in the CoD series? Other wise it's just people showing of their creations, with no connection to CoD. This is the Call of Duty Wiki after all. Captain Hax 217 ^{T C E} 00:22, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As being the co-owner, I have no nood for a reason. Peeg, you could have added my vote already. Slowrider7 20:34, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment to Above- I could of, then the self made Voting Patrol Oficcer, a.k.a. this guy would be all in my face. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Passed - Group is now an official Usergroup.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  21:58', April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Zombie SlayersEdit

I, Dolten have been working with Conqueror of all Zombies and Darthkenobi0, to create this. We will fix up the Nazi Zombie pages, make a task force for Zombiepedia, and have fun while were doing it!

Support	7
Neutral	0
Oppose	1

Support - As creator 00:11, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as member. Darthkenobi0^Talk|^Blog|^Editcount 00:14, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Nazi Zombie pages are fine and Usergroups should be related to the wiki. -- EightOhEight ^Talk 06:41, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support I agree. And I see a lot of problems with the Nazi Zombie pages. The quote pages need to be way reworked and the trivia on the pages is usually filled with spelling errors. --Poketape ^Talk 21:43, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have been working on the quote pages, I don't think they'll be too much of a problem soon. As for the zombie pages, they really need help, theres more "yous" in them than any other category on the wiki. 23:26, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As member. Commander W567123daniel^{Wanna Talk?}|^{My Duty}|^Wassup? 01:56, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support- As creator. Conqueror of all Zombies ^Talk 02:02, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Poketape. And EightOhEight, Nazi Zombies has relevance to Call of Duty. Doc. Richtofen 16:56, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Nazi Zombies, as Richtofen said, is relevant to Call of Duty. DevilWarrior11207:44, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Has this vote been desided? Are the Zombie Slayers now a usergroup? Conqueror of all Zombies ^Talk 23:09, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Have patience, an admin will confirm this sooner or later. Captain Hax 217 ^{T C E} 23:24, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Just wondering. Conqueror of all Zombies ^Talk 23:28, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Passed - Group is now an official Usergroup. Doc. Richtofen 20:15, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - umm shouldn't this be archived? Darthkenobi0^Talk|^Blog|^Editcount 23:13, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Will do now, I was waiting for an official page first. Doc. Richtofen 16:20, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Admins' Pets Edit

There are a large number of members so far, it simply needs a page, it would basically be either a recreational group with the intent of designating users dedicated to helping the wiki and aspiring to use sysop tools one day. It might also be a project group with the intent of aiding the admins of this wiki. Here is what there is so far: the blog discussion on it: User blog:Sactage/Admin's pet usergroup guidelines discussion,  and the non-official page:user:sactage/Admin's Pets

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	1

Oppose - no definitive purpose. -- EightOhEight ^Talk 03:45, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Darth. Doc. Richtofen 16:20, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - It's pourpose would be to help the admins, like an intern would do ^{T C E B} 22:23, April 30, 2010 (UTC) - Please read the new guidelines before voting. -- EightOhEight ^Talk 17:11, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Administrative internship doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 01:40, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Disregard what CE said 'bout admin intership. That's not what it is. Sactage Talk 02:09, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - They 808, do you oppose every Usergroup? Conqueror of all Zombies ^Talk 00:52, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - the ones with no definitive purpose. -- EightOhEight ^Talk 03:48, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - Per Cain. 11:27, May 1, 2010 (UTC) - Please read the new guidelines before voting. -- EightOhEight ^Talk 17:11, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - 808, where are the new guidelines posted? I can't find them ANYWHERE. Sactage Talk 21:49, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

"Voting Guidelines" -- EightOhEight ^Talk 00:33, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Good idea. Per nominator. Dunn ^{Talk to me. Edits} 22:12, May 1, 2010 (UTC) - I didn't know about the new guidelines. Sorry. Dunn ^{Talk to me. Edits} 22:21, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - I see no reason why not. He's just helping the admins, not getting any power. Sort of like a mini-mod. TheManOfIron^{T C E B} 00:22, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support If they want to help out they might as well, but I think the members should be approved by admins as the group's name seems to show. Poketape ^Talk 03:43, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Voting Closed - Usergroup is now official. Doc. Richtofen 14:28, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Admins' PetsEdit

There are a large number of members so far. It would be a recreational group. The page for this user group can be found here.

Support	2
Neutral	0
Oppose	4

Support - Would be a great way for users to learn how to be a good future administrator. Doc. Richtofen 17:49, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support I coulda sworn we just passed this one -- ^{T C E B} 18:05, May 15, 2010 (UTC) Member of the group can't vote. 404 Error ^{File Not Found Please Try Again} 18:06, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- I thought this one was passed a couple of days ago? HeatedPete^Talk 20:38, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Reverted Doc. Richtofen 20:44, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Ahh. this may help (sorry bout external) HeatedPete^Talk 20:49, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support Might as well support again. Poketape ^Talk 00:32, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see either a project-helping cause for this group nor a recreational cause, other than sucking up to administrators. It's implied, by the name and what it 'does', that this is similar to a form of ROTC for adminship. It glorifies the administration and doesn't accomplish anything. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 07:33, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Chia. -- EightOhEight ^Talk 07:38, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I am not a fan of this, nor am I a fan of usergroups in general.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  11:26, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think that this should be an officially recognized usergroup, but generally speaking members of the group are very helpful, and it is somewhat, dare I say, endearing? It doesn't need to be official for it to serve its purpose. Imrlybord7 04:58, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm a bit fuzzy about the duties of members who have been "adopted", and what the actual function of the group is. Warpig3|1|2 05:04, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Request withdrawn - As leader of group. 404 Error ^{File Not Found Please Try Again} 11:41, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Official Firearm ExpertsEdit

We would be a lot like the ATEFI, but we would only allow much more experinced users to join. It would be a mostly recreational group, although we would change any false "truths." 01:06, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support	1
Neutral	0
Oppose	3

Oppose - It might make users that don't get accepted feel inferior. Also, we have the ATEFI, so this group is unneeded.Cpl. Dunn^(Talk)

Oppose - We have the ATEFI, we don't need another firearms expert group. DevilWarrior112

Oppose per all Poketape ^Talk 02:37, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Group doesn't have 10 members.Poketape ^Talk 02:38, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Ask A VeteranEdit

I'm not exactly sure what AAV is, it's halfway between a project group and an actual project, but I'd like if it got official status, it has more than enough members, with plenty more on the way (we'll have somewhere over twenty after I finish reviewing new requests) including several administrators, who have helped get it off the ground. We've created many guides so far, and provided some answers (several more guides are on the way). I feel that Ask A Veteran would help improve the Call of Duty Wiki as an official project group. I am not however asking that the guides be given a label as "Official Call of Duty Wiki Guides", only our group. Thank you for considering! TimSim(talk) 10:51, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support	4
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support - Guides are extremely helpful to other players and a great way to help inexperienced players grasp better understanding of game mechanics. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 13:47, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Bovell Lima Oscar Zulu Zulu Alpha

Support - A great way to help users/IPs. azuris_ 16:20, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Bovell. Happy Boy |Talk21:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Nomination Complete, Group will be added. Poketape ^Talk 04:02, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

AC-130 LoversEdit

The usergroup has more than enough members, and has been aroung for 2 weeks on the 14th of July. I just feel that it should be a official usergroup. Rampantlion513 01:59, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support	0
Neutral	0
Oppose	1

Oppose - For now I oppose. It does not appear to have any real organization,leaders, ect. All it is right now is a list of users with a non template userbox. Nothing else. I feel it needs more before becoming an official usergroup. If that can be done you have my vote. Foxtrot12 03:54, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment-I don't know how to make it a real template.Rampantlion513 16:18, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- I won't blame you for that but still it needs more. A general mission statement about the groups goals and purposes, a place for users to request membership, and maybe the ability to share AC-130 related stories between members. It still needs more to become official. Foxtrot12 14:54, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The usergroup needs to be more established. Check out the orders above, then you'll know what to do. DevilWarrior11216:17, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Nomination Failed Poketape ^Talk 19:10, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

User:Advancedwarfighter/Explosives_and_Launchers_SpecialistsEdit

This usergroup has enough members, and we have been around for a long time. Advancedwarfighter 10:26, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It doesn't have a page, and could you show us some members of the group. I have never heard of it. Blinzy^[45] 10:31, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Blinzy, I forgot to add a link.... Advancedwarfighter 09:34, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose It needs to be more established. I haven't heard of it either. Poketape ^Talk 19:10, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Nomination Failed Poketape ^Talk 19:10, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

AC-130 LoversEdit

Well.I figure we should try again.Anyway we are running for Recreational usergroup. We have more than enough users,and have been around for a long, long, long, time. 04:48, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Vote Closed - Nomination unsuccessfull. Doc.Richtofen (Talk) 14:44, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

The NeutralistsEdit

I have heard that the War Room is meant for usergroups to discuss the process. If so, please comment, and we will move it.

Umm... yeah! Hi guys! Well, I'm attempting to create a new usergroup that seeks to help admins by reporting any unruly, unacceptable or inappropriate behavior. The group is called 'The Neutralists', and you can search up User:Tsunami Volt/The Neutralists.

However, I must say that we have very few official members, although the usergroup has garnered quite a lot of attention. It's been up and running for about 2 or 3 weeks, and it's pretty complete.

Also, I forgot to mention, but the usergroup's page, as of this day, incorrectly states that we are attempting to help solve any flame wars or arguments. After a very recent proposal, we have decided to omit this part from our responsibilities, and will simply patrol and report behavior that we find is unacceptable to the community.

Tsunami Volt^Talk 07:59, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

VotingEdit

Please comment with your chosen vote, and feel free to also state why you support/oppose/remain neutral, or any suggestions you would like to make to help improve the usergroup (and the Wiki as a whole, if I'm not being sarcastic).

Weak Oppose — I see no point in this group. (Upon fully reading the proposal and realising the usergroup has given up their intentions of trying to deal with flaming, I'm changing this to a weak oppose) -- Sactage ^(talk) 13:11, June 13, 2011 (UTC) -- Meh, looking at some other stuff, I might as well support, since the group's purpose actually makes sense. Does it meet the requirements, however? -- Sactage ^(talk) 13:48, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Weak Support -- per my above text. -- Sactage ^(talk) 13:48, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose — Does not meet all the requirements. — -- mr_expert talk 14:42, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

How? It has 5 members, has a valid reason and has been around for atleast a week. Dudebot • Talk 23:40, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

That's not a grounds for opposal, more of a grounds for dismissal, but it doesn't seem as if it shall pass, regardless. -- Sactage ^(talk) 13:19, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Also, @dudebot, it needs to have 10 members, as I don't believe it can be classified as a project group. -- Sactage ^(talk) 13:20, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Well, to counter that, let me say this - it may not be a project group, but the actions that we have agreed on taking will result in people getting warnings, banned, or blocked. That can't be a recreational group, right? Tsunami Volt^Talk 10:56, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose — I would like to see the group actually do something, other than debating on members. Pierogi^Talk 00:02, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose — I was talking to another user via IRC, and one of the members tried to stop us from talking and threatening to post a forum with what the other user said. Not the most mature group and also doesn't know when to not get involved. _Sp3c^Talk_ 00:27, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Basing your vote around one person's decision is not very fair. Dudebot • Talk 00:38, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it kind of is when that person is a master member =\. Pierogi^Talk 00:46, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this group has only been here for 13 days. Pierogi^Talk 00:34, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Comment — I understand people's views, but I would like to object to some of the reasons given. For one, we do meet all the requirements (the misunderstanding could be based around the fact that the user believed that this was a Recreational Usergroup, and so believed that it required 10 people), we have been around for a week (today marks the second week in operation), and we do have a valid goal. If someone were to help me and see if there were other requirements. For Cpl.Bohater's case, I don't understand what he means by 'debating on members'. If this is pointing to the fact that we are actively pursuing and attempting to cease flame wars, we are NOT. In fact, Cpl.Bohater was the reason I pursued the proposal to switch to simply reporting users who are carrying out inappropriate behavior. If it meant something else, then any user (or Cpl.Bohater himself) is more than welcome to respond and correct me.

For Sp3c's case, the incident could possibly have happened before the current changes and proposal was carried out. Also, I don't believe one of our members was involved at all. I'm not sure if it is possible, but is there a way to view the history of IRC chats, and to provide the username of the user in question (although if it may be against Wiki policies or simply an act of disregarding universal privacy requirements, then ignore this request), could a user do so. I understand that we are quite a new group, and we will attempt to improve on any of our guidelines or actions.

By the way, the current page for the usergroup is not correct. I have the revised version, but I'm going to wait for the events of the vote (seeing that if it fails, I can immediately apply the changes, but if it succeeds, I can simply copy the revised version into the assigned page).

Thank you for your attention and time, and we respect all your opinions and suggestions on improving the usergroup. Tsunami Volt^Talk 08:06, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

I hardly see any reporting going on. Pierogi^Talk 21:26, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose — Personally, I don't really see this group reporting much vandilism. Besides, we have Anti-vandal groups already (e.g Image Guardians, Night Patrol etc.).Reznov115^Talk 19:32, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose — I dont see much work being done by the users in this group. And Per Reznov115. And bribing people with Senior Membership doesnt seem right... DrkDragonz66   Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   19:38, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

Voting Closed - Well, it's clear that the community is clearly opposed to the idea. But thank you for your comments and suggestions, and we will try to improve and begin to help the wiki more often. Tsunami Volt^Talk 13:12, June 27, 2011 (UTC)