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: 12
 * Oppose: 6
 * Neutral: 4

''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)


 * Comment: Well alright then. I could say because just a few nights ago your cousin asked me for phone sex on AIM using your screenname and pretending to be you, and when I mentioned it to you on RuneScape I got a message back saying something along the lines of "Oh **** I use that pass for a lot of other accounts." Meaning: I don't think your account is very safe, and therefore is another reason I would not want you to have 'crat rights. But you know, I really didn't want to have to mention that on the wiki. Oh well, bit late now. Christine Talk 14:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What my cousin does has nothing to do with my own actions. I told you that I don't use that account on AIM anymore. And, I don't use that password on any wikis or on RS itself. It's an alternate password I use for mostly download sites. You can see for yourself that no one else has ever had control of any of my wiki accounts. And if you didn't want to mention it on the wiki, you wouldn't have. 18:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I told you in game, unless I actually told you what my reason was, you'd have never believed me if I said that I DID have a more valid reason. Also, it doesn't matter if its a different pass. What if he figured out the one for this account? Christine Talk 18:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't all bureaucrats risk that? 19:20, 15 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)
 * Changed to oppose. Right, this is why I couldn't give you 100% support. Sorry for going back on my vote, but I'm not really fond of the way you've addressed people. This isn't just because of tonight's controversy, of course. -- 05:05, 21 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.

S'port, I agree with Amaurice. ^^ 11:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I need to see an improvement in how you speak to others before I could trust you with this. Tarikochi 15:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - We needn't base votes on time. I've been here since October 2006 and was sysoped in January yet I'm not worthy of these privillages (according to the community) while Gang is and he's been here less time and is worthy (again according to the community). Time isn't a factor. 14:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While you're right that time isn't a factor Ilyas, I think you'll find that a large majority of the community would find you worthy of bureaucrat privileges. 18:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Like me =). 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support You're active, i like the quality of your edits and you hardly fight. Arnie 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks =) I enjoy having a little competition with you as our mainspace edits rise, yet you always seem to find a way to stay around 50 edits ahead of me! 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Who me? Arnie 19:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why thank you Gangsterls, however I find my mainspace editcount to be my problem, and the fact that I'm on three days a week. 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Awesome user. Awesome edits. Nothing more to say. ^_^ 02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol, thx. 02:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Malestro we don't base decisions for bureaucrat under amount of time as sysop. --Whiplash 11:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support-I think youll make a good bureaucrat you have my support. P.s. vote on the polls on my page.

Suhpot 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - I haven't seen too much of you, nor have I watched much of your wiki activity (but I don't really do that for anyone). But what I have seen of you, you haven't been quite what one would hope to see from someone in charge. I'm not sure if we're supposed to bring ingame behavior into this, but since it's the same person both on the wiki and ingame, I don't see why not. But ingame I've seen you flame others and degrade (me, before you realized who "that mod" was), and the nomination post leaves a bit to be desired. But, since I don't feel that I've seen enough of you to really go one way or another, I vote neutral. (Ojdude) 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed to NEUTRAL - I would support because I trust Gangsterls with a b'crat's powers, but no one has answered my question. 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - Very active user other than a few play squabbles with me here and there very good user overall. And Rendova responding to your comment I've seen alot more Gangsterls then I have of you *giggles*. :P --Whiplash 21:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hence my neutral, and not oppose ;) 00:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Do we need to give a reason? Atlandy 01:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: To be precise, I'm not exactly the most active editor here, but believe that I deserve at least a say on some community issues. While it's unchallenged that Gangsterls is undoubtedly an editor of high caliber, his personality and language at times leaves me to doubt the viability of Gangsterls as a bureaucrat; furthermore, what is the need for extra bureaucrats? A bureaucrat just can make others administrators. I'm sorry, Gangster, but this is just my call. Cheers, RelentlessRecusant  'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/rainbowsix/images/7/73/GDI2.jpg TALK • MESSAGE 04:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We need at least one other bureaucrat. It often takes a week over the limit for the RFAs to be closed.  This isn't for "extra" bureaucrats, it's because it's necessary.  My belief is that it's better to have too many bureaucrats than not enough.  If we have too many, some of them might not get to use their powers (who cares?).  Yes there is a greater chance of power abuse, but that isn't significant if we choose the right people.  On the other hand with too few bureaucrats, RFAs don't get closed quickly enough. Dtm142 22:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, if there is too few RfAs may never get closed. 22:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ^ AKA absolute zero. We're not there yet, but we're on the verge. Dtm142 22:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I believe that a good bureaucrat would be able to keep calm and cool-headed in a debate. I have seen contradictions of that in Talk:Taverley and RuneScape:Votes for deletion/Tavvy, along with even misreadings of policies. It would be appreciated if you can improve in that before being trusted as bureaucrat. Tarikochi 23:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral: That "what now bitch????" wasn't a very fond explanation for a block. http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/6032/bt3sw5.png Done whoozy! 00:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did it say that? 13:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote that Blanko said can be found here on September 4th:  [[Image:Bowman_hat.png|12px]]<font color="green" face="Verdana" size="1">Tarikochi 14:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral: I lol'd, but your reasoning for Ice's ban was terrible, especially as most of his recent edits were a-OK.
 * To Rendova: I think Blanko was talking about this. I believe Gang and Ice were joking around. But I'l let Gangsterls defend himself. 17:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tes. Icecube and I were joking around in the IRC and Icecube said he was going to upload a picture of a preying mantis or some bug I can't remember the name of that he had caught and gotten a picture of. I told him I would delete it because it was a pointless image unrelated to the wiki. He uploaded it once and I deleted it, then he laughed about it in the IRC and uploaded it again. I deleted it again and then blocked him for 2 hours and put the summary as "what now bitch?" as a joke. He said something along the lines of "idc it's only 2 hours lol" and that was the end of the conversation. 21:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a very cute mantis. Dtm142 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol. XD 21:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)