RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Gangsterls

Gangsterls
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've been putting this off for weeks because I was hoping to get nominated because of the growing need for a more active bureaucrat. However, Dtm has the balls to self-nominate for bureaucrat, and I've had enough of waiting.

I think that I've been active long enough, edited enough, made good enough decisions, and shown enough maturity to deserve bureaucrat status. But who am I to tell you whether I deserve this? You're the voters. 01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Current totals
Votes:
 * Support: 6
 * Oppose: 4
 * Neutral: 0

''I, Gangsterls, 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, Gangsterls 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC).

Discussion
Support Ice 01:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - As I said on Dtm's nomination, I despise of self nominations. However, you are very deserving. You've made lots of edits and are a very nice member of the community. I enjoy talking to you ingame (as you remember we had a 30 minute conversation the other day while I was picking flax) and you're very reasonable. Good Luck. 19:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Don't b'crats have to nominate people for ability to be a 'crat? 19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yo. Spam ftw. ^^ Anyway, I Support because Gangsterls is very helpful and nice, and is one of the very few people who don't seem to think I ruined the wiki partly with my "bs and lies". But no need to open up old wounds, right? 20:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Good sysop, seems to stay away from trouble which is good. He also takes my view in that we don't have enough active bureaucrats and has done something about it. Dtm142 01:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - not been a sysop very long (just a few months), "poor white trash" comment, etc. Christine Talk 01:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've been a sysop since May 28. In comparison, Dtm was sysoped a week earlier on May 21. I'd say that over 4 months isn't bad for an active sysop. Since I was sysoped, I have been consistent in reverting vandalism, blocking vandals, protecting pages, and editing. And if you're still dwelling on a comment which I've already apologized for, I'd like to remind you that you've made such comments yourself, so it seems very hypocritical of you to judge others for their comments. 02:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to lean on a mild support for now. Gangsterls is definitely a very active user that has made some quality edits, but I don't feel that I can give him my full support. Either way, I think he deserves it. -- 03:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - He is very active, knows what he's doing and been a good sysop. 08:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks to my supporters =). Can you at least give me a reason for your oppose, Katshuma? I'm not adverse to constructive criticism. As for Chia's oppose, I think that there'll be a vote on changing that rule. 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - template:signatures/malestro 23:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)- Yah i'm still here. I oppose for a few reasons. Been a sysop about as long as I have, and even though you've been working harder and longer, I just don't think you're ready yet.