RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Dtm142

Dtm142
Note: This is a nomination for bureaucrat, not sysop. Bureaucrats have the ability to promote other users to sysop or bureaucrat and grant rollback rights.

I am nominating myself for this role because I feel that it is necessary to have an active bureaucrat. The current bureaucrats do not pay enough attention to RFAs. Tarikochi's nomination should have been closed a week ago (at the time of writing), and there have been others this summer that have been overdue such as Blankothe3rd and Cashman286. I tried to notify the bureaucrats, but they haven't logged in and closed Tarikochi's since.

I feel that I would be a good candidate for bureaucrat because:


 * 1) I've been an active sysop for several months. I am trustworthy and have not abused my powers.
 * 2) I constantly monitor the RFAs and notify the bureaucrats when it's time to close them through the charts and their talk pages.
 * 3) I am active and check the wiki almost every day.
 * 4) I already follow most of the instructions here. If I could promote others to sysop, this would happen even faster.

I nominated myself because I know that I can handle the duties and would be a good candidate. I really don't care who the next bureaucrat is. If you feel that you deserve this more than I do, please go ahead and nominate yourself. However, please do not nominate someone else. I want the candidate to take the same view as me in that we don't have enough active bureaucrats, and therefore take the initiative to write the nomination themself. If you think someone else deserves this role, notify them on their talk page and let them decide. It's better to have too many bureaucrats than not enough. Dtm142 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Current totals
Votes:
 * Support: 11
 * Oppose: 1
 * Neutral: 0

''I, Dtm142, accept this nomination for adminship. I have read the policies concerning administrators. I realize that this nomination may fail. If I do get community consensus, I promise not to abuse my powers because I realize that this is a serious offence and if the community finds that I have done so, my powers will be revoked and in extreme cases I could be given a community ban. Signed, Dtm142 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC).

Discussion
Support - He's well-grounded and rational, and more importantly, he's got balls. 01:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Why do balls matter? [[Image:Bowman_hat.png|12px]]Tarikochi 15:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Ice 01:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't support more. Very responsible user, very down-to-earth, and very active. -- 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Support need i say anything else? Arnie 14:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - Although I despise self nominations, you do deserve it. You've been here for a long time and we do need more crats around here, perhaps one or two (I see Gangsterls has nominated himself, that makes 2). You've made a lot of edits and are very deserving of this position. Good Luck. 19:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Don't b'crats have to nominate people for b'cratship? 19:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is true, but we are in a position where no crats are active enough at the moment to be involved with the community much. Nonetheless, I am upset that Dtm would self-nominate instead of ask other users for consideration first. A contributor as seasoned as he should know better. 20:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposite of oppose, which is Support. Although, I may be lying, in which case it's an Oppose. But disregard that, because I'm not. Sooo....Support ...or is it? 20:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Any reason to....Whatever your vote is? 20:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. ^^ But do I need to say them? 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, to prevent a possible flame war of "Cash you NEVER give a good reason!" (I'm not saying you do, I'm just saying what someone else couild say )or something like that. 21:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the self nomination: I strongly disagree with what you guys have said about it. Self nomination should almost be a requirement for bureaucrats. Someone nominating themself means that they have recognized the problem of not having enough bureaucrats and have decided to take appropriate action against it. Only the candidate themself knows whether or not they are really up for the bureaucrat role, so nominating somebody else for bureaucrat should actually be strongly discouraged. On Wikipedia, it's generally self nomination only. With sysop the nominator isn't as big of a deal, but with not enough bureaucrats somebody has to wander over to Wikia Central every time someone needs to be sysopped. Thanks for all of the comments so far. Dtm142 00:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - Although I do disagree with Dtm142's comment that self nomination should be a requirement for bureaucrats, I do believe his intensions are good. He is active and level headed, and been a good sysop. 07:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - My goodness, how embarrassing. I told myself I would edit as much I did as a sysop, but life's crazy like that. Don't lose activity, Dtm. ;) 05:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: you also pinky-promised me you'd edit as much =[ =P Christine Talk 18:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - I keep on forgetting you're not already a bureaucrat, lol. Tarikochi 15:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Mild support: Although I feel you can handle the responsibilities of a 'crat, I don't think you've been a sysop very long. However, we do need a 'crat, and I can't think of many other better candidates, so I support. Christine Talk 18:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)