Gangsterls TalkContribs • Last 20 Forum - Main - User talk editsEdit count

Closing statement: Gangsterls appears knowledgeable and capable of being a crat. However, many users oppose on the grounds of argumentative or otherwise inappopriate behavior from a bureaucrat. Because after a few weeks Gangster only received about a 70% support, his bureaucratship did not pass. Woodcutting-iconHyenastetalk 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


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. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Current totals


  • Support: 12
  • Oppose: 6
  • Neutral: 5

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).


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.Yellow partyhat Ilyas Talk Contribs 19:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Don't b'crats have to nominate people for ability to be a 'crat? Dragon helmChiafriend12Granite body (old)Loon is best buttlord 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? Dragon scimitar old talk|editcount</span>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. ChristineTalk 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. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk02:37, 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. ChristineTalk 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. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk18:11, 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? ChristineTalk 18:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't all bureaucrats risk that? Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk19:20, 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. --Themurasame Hiscores 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. --Themurasame Hiscores 05:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Oppose - User page "Katshuma" Talk page 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. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - OnyxMalestrotemplate: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. ^^ User:Speckledorph/Sig 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. Chompy bird hat (bowman)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.Yellow partyhat Ilyas Talk Contribs 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. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk18:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Like me =). Dragon scimitar old talk|editcount</span>19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support You're active, i like the quality of your edits and you hardly fight. King Black Dragon This dude is evil King Black Dragon like hellArnie 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! Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Who me? King Black Dragon This dude is evil King Black Dragon like hellArnie 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.Yellow partyhat Ilyas Talk Contribs 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Awesome user. Awesome edits. Nothing more to say. ^_^ Easter egg Avenged Pumpkin Talk 02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, thx. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk02:02, 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. Santa hatA town's backmore a townSandBlue partyhat

Suhpot Second-abyssal-whip Spitfire Dragon sq shield talk 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) Rendova 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. Dragon helmChiafriend12Granite body (old)Loon is best buttlord 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 ;) Rendova 00:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed to NEUTRAL Do we need to give a reason? After seeing all the turmoil caused by a redirect for a word that is never used, and belittling others.Scythe Atlandy 01:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - You seem to know you a lot and you have been very active. So yeah. Piety Sir Lenehan File:Smite old.png|30px 06:26, 25 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 GDI2.jpg TALKMESSAGE 04:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Invalid: Has not edited in 2 months cannot just return to make a vote. --Whiplash 00:19, 25 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. Dragon helmChiafriend12Granite body (old)Loon is best buttlord 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. Chompy bird hat (bowman)Tarikochi 23:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral: That "what now bitch????" wasn't a very fond explanation for a block. Done whoozy! 00:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Where did it say that? Rendova 13:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The quote that Blanko said can be found here on September 4th: [1] Chompy bird hat (bowman)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. Rollback crownearth(t)
To Rendova: I think Blanko was talking about this. I believe Gang and Ice were joking around. But I'l let Gangsterls defend himself. Sysop crownTes FanSysop crown 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. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk21:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a very cute mantis. Dtm142 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Lol. XD Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk21:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I just don't think either you or Dtm are ready for 'cratship. Also Dtm, let's remember that the 'there should be no limit on the number of admins/'crats' logic got us into trouble with the Wiki Staff after the quite large explosion in Admins earlier this year. Chaoticar 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cite your sources? Dtm142 21:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
My bad. >.> Chaoticar 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Just recently, Gangsterls have restored Tavvy constantly despite re-deletion, after the results on RuneScape:Votes for deletion/Tavvy have been decided to delete it.

His reasoning was apparently to prove a point against Christine's redirects on seeds.

Someone with such immaturity to resort to reviving old arguments to prove a point against someone else (one such example seen here [2]) is definitely not what I want to see in a bureaucrat. Chompy bird hat (bowman)Tarikochi 03:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And someone who displays blatant hypocrisy as you and Christine have is definitely not what I want to see in a sysop. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk03:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I am neither for nor against Christine's redirects. Assuming that and calling me a hypocrite for it is inappropriate. Chompy bird hat (bowman)Tarikochi 03:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Did I say you were? No. I said that you have displayed blatant hypocrisy. You're the one making the assumption that I thought you were for Christine's redirects. And you are hardly one to lecture me on what is or is not inappropriate. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk03:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
What am I being a hypocrite about? Chompy bird hat (bowman)Tarikochi 03:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Telling me that my behavior is inappropriate is hypocritical for one, considering how you were willing to back it up with a Wikipedia policy, which is inappropriate (RSW is NOT Wikipedia). I don't suppose that you posted a link to an example of my "inappropriate behavior" on my RFB page out of the goodness of your heart. This is what I mean by persecuting others. You seem to enjoy holding grudges. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk03:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I never mentioned Wikipedia; you are mistaken me with someone else.
And I posted a link because I do not believe you qualify for bureaucracy. Leaving it unnoted can cause problems in the future, not because of grudges that you assume I have. Chompy bird hat (bowman)Tarikochi 03:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether you claim not to have a grudge against me or not, your actions speak louder than your words. For instance, why did you restore Relentless's vote after Whiplash deleted it? Whiplash has authority over you as a bureaucrat, and Relentless clearly does not qualify to vote in community ballots. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk03:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The main section does not mention restrictions regarding his valicity.
Whiplash only has authority over me in his ability to give Wiki rights to others. Other than that, we are both equal.
And as mentioned before, prohibiting Relentless from voting is the same as prohibiting someone who has only been in the Wiki for a month from voting. Chompy bird hat (bowman)Tarikochi 03:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Can't you two let it die? You're trying to prove your points, and by bringing this up and not letting it die, you make yourselves look like bickering little kids who are just too stubborn to realize you're not getting anywhere. Both of your points have been made. It's as though you're arguing for the sake of arguing (and I've noticed that people seem to try and find reasons to debate online. Someone is probably even going to try to counter this statement.) and it's pretty annoying. Just let it die. *kicks self for getting involved* Rendova 08:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: My redirects on seeds (and herbs for that matter) are solely for the purpose of preventing wanted pages from appearing in the future, because the wiki is case-sensitive. I don't know what was wrong with them..? ChristineTalk 19:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Relentless's vote will remain invalid im sure all of you would be more then annoyed with a user that came back out of two months of inactivity to oppose you. No user's vote has ever been considered valid if they have been inactive for more then 2 months. I believe I recall one where Dreadnought came back just to oppose someones nomination and we didn't count it. Whiplash 21:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing statement: Gangsterls appears knowledgeable and capable of being a crat. However, many users oppose on the grounds of argumentative or otherwise inappopriate behavior from a bureaucrat. Because after a few weeks Gangster only received about a 70% support, his bureaucratship did not pass. Woodcutting-iconHyenastetalk 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

...This is the first RFA ever in the history of RSW to be unsuccessful despite a supporting majority. 65% is a solid majority. How is this decision democratic? Multiple RFAs have been successful in the past with less of a majority than this. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk00:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that the voters are supposed to be the ones making the decision. Here's a quote from What RSW is not...:

While many community processes, such as votes for deletion and requests for adminship use voting, votes are not strictly binding. They are to be used only as a measure of consensus on a given issue. That is to say, if there is a vote on something, and the action is narrowly approved, this may not be fully indicative of consensus. In general, a consensus is only reached if 60% or more of participating editors agree. If there is no consensus either way, the vote should default to the status quo. Consensus is the ultimate decision maker on the wiki.

The policy indicates that 60% can be considered as a general consensus. I don't want to argue about it, but here's the question I'm trying to ask: Why did you ignore the consensus and make your own decision? If there's any particular reason you think my RFB should be unsuccessful, knowing it could only help me improve. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk00:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
wikipedia:WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. Votes are not binding. ChristineTalk 00:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
We aren't Wikipedia, and I don't see why someone feels the need to link to a Wikipedia policy in almost every discussion on RSW. Our "What RSW is not" policy says that consensus is the ultimate decision maker on the wiki. And before you link to the Wikipedia policy named 'Consensus can change', note that any voter here is free to change their vote. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk01:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You're quoting a policy (RS:NOT) that hasn't received community consensus yet. It was just written by User:Skill and he's not any higher than the rest of us, so until you can quote a valid policy, Wikipedia policies can be brought to your attention. ChristineTalk 01:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies are equally invalid. At least RS:NOT is on the wiki, and it was written by Emosworld, Skill, Tesfan, you (although your edit was minor), Wowbagger, and Rendova. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk01:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I could add a RuneScape: page on anything, and would you quote it if it didn't have consensus? No. ChristineTalk 01:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The point was that the policy wasn't just written by one person. Stop flooding the page with this, I asked Hyenaste a question and I don't need to be criticized or have arguments trying to counter me before he even gets a chance to answer it. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Actually, I made the "not" page. It was first made on DRSW, then Emos moved it to RSW. Dragon helmChiafriend12Granite body (old)Loon is best buttlord 01:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I can comment wherever I want Gang. ChristineTalk 01:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing statement: Gangsterls appears knowledgeable and capable of being a crat. However, many users oppose on the grounds of argumentative or otherwise inappopriate behavior from a bureaucrat. Because after a few weeks Gangster only received about a 70% support, his bureaucratship did not pass. Woodcutting-iconHyenastetalk 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)