Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GangstaEB

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] GangstaEB

Final (1/10/0) ended 23:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

GangstaEB (talk • contribs) – I have done stupid stuff. I have been uncivil (my temper went off), made personal attacks (temper again), disrupted (not knowing I was disrupting), attempted to start angry mobs (didn't know it was against policy and I was joking), and vandalized (I took the term "vandalism box" literally). But I really want the mop right now. I was an irresponsible vandal fighter, and I have had stupid RFA standards in the past. I also accepted a WAY premature nomination meant to bribe me into taking up for an abusive user. I want to be forgiven. I have quit playing with sigs and userpages. And if I shoot off my mouth, I am just having a bad day. I shouldn't though. GangstaEB help me improve! 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted.Withdrawn per [{WP:SNOW]]. GangstaEB help me improve! 23:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Blocking vandals, 3RRS, bad usernames, and other violators. Deleting speedy deletions, -FDs and undeleting DRVs. Protecting and unprotecting pages that need it. And more.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: The Did You Know and Good Article CornerShot. Because I did a lot for that article. I helped just a little on the FA Franklin D. Roosevelt.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes and I was uncivil when I was a new user. And I won't do it again. I will be civil and try to work stuff out in a more civil manner.

Comments

• See GangstaEB's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• My contributions:

Username GangstaEB
Total edits 2474
Distinct pages edited 994
Average edits/page 2.489
First edit 17:43, 29 April 2006
 
(main) 996
Talk 68
User 285
User talk 493
Image 46
Image talk 5
Template 133
Template talk 18
Category 11
Wikipedia 340
Wikipedia talk 74
Portal 4
Portal talk 1

Support

1. Support I don't see a problem with this user. FellowWikipedian 23:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Object why should (we) trust you with the mop? are you reliable? What is different now from the past? You haven't answered the questions at all. Rama's arrow 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   I'm pretty reliable. And I went back and answered them better. GangstaEB help me improve! 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose I feel this RfA is a bit premature. Three months as a Wikipedian is rarely enough time to gain the experience necessary to become an administrator. I am eagerly awaiting an elaboration of your answers to the questions, as it will help us better understand your desire for the extra buttons and could help you garner support votes for the future, as well as the present hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose weak answers Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Former RFA nomination as Gangsta-Easter-Bunny was way too soon. Still not convinced user knows his way around wikipedia. Weak answers to questions and introduction that reads like a parody of someone wanting a lot of oppose votes. I don't want to see apologies, rather evidence that there are positive edits that suggest these transgression are past. I would need to see significantly more than 2500 edits and time to be assured this is the case. David D. (Talk) 22:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Hoopydink, David D. and Aranda56. How can you prove that you've changed other than saying "I'm pretty reliable"? Anyone can say that. 1ne 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose I'm afraid actions speak louder than words. How have you changed? Nothing can confirm this. Michael 22:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Adminship is about trust and I can't say I trust this user yet. I'm delighted he got FDR featured (my favourite president), but what about the sockpuppet concerns from the last RfA, sparked by this diff [1]? It seemed to imply he was a sock of the nominator, who was blocked for being a sock of Willy on Wheels. We might be adminning Willy here. Was that ever cleared up? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Fails more than one of my criteria. My advice: if you are sincere, then stick around the project for another 6 months to a year and be a consistent, solid, trustable user. Make many edits, make good edits. Do that, and I will promise you my support on the next go-around. Themindset 22:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Edit conflict oppose per 1ne, and answers given are insufficient. Kalani ^[talk] 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
10. per the above users, sorry. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 23:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.