Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Certified.Gangsta


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

Certified.Gangsta
Final (1/7/0); Ended 05:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC) - closed by -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk per WP:SNOW.

- I have been in the Wikipedia community in all areas for several years now, and have been very active in certain periods. Even in the months where I had a low edit count, I made sure those edits were useful to the Wikipedia community. Recently, I experience a new surge of passion for Wikipedia after coming back due a leave due to health-related issues. I have attempted to focus on a wide-range of topics, so I feel that I am ready for the admin tools. In addition, I have demonstrated in the past that I can handle the workload of a sysop. I feel that I can work for a long time each day on here without a problem, and I believe I can truly help wikipedia. --Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It's a self-nom, so obviously I accept.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:


 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: The biggest problem right now is definitely admin abuse and gang-patrolling of certain articles by rogue admins who consistently patronize radicals/extremists. The lamentable yet predictable outcome is often the failure to uphold NPOV in mainspace articles. I would put forth voice of reasons and help resolve these disputes and to prevent one-sided outcomes that would harm the quality of the contents. One of the biggest thing I would love to help with is C:CSD. Often I see articles that clearly should be speedied, but sit there for hours, which doesn’t work in case of emergency. I also want to help out at WP:AIV, but that’s secondary as one can warn and report users there without needing admin tools. Most importantly to me would be the ability to semi-protect and unprotect pages on WP:RFPP. The other main focus is without a doubt WP: AN/I which I have quite a bit of expertise in. I also want to get involve in arbCom (maybe as a clerk?) I didn’t add everything for admins to do up, but that doesn’t mean I’ll ignore other aspects; I will contribute to wherever I am needed as an admin. Basically, I am experienced enough that I would know what to do when a matter arises that requires my input.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A I have significantly contributed to many mainspace articles such as Magee Secondary School, Dominguez High School, 50 Cent, Keeley Hazell, etc and upholding NPOV principle in various controversial Taiwan vs. China related articles. Also, I’ve been working on WikiProject: Taiwan, WikiProject: Hip hop and WikiProject: Podcasting in hopes that some of the other articles covered by these projects can become featured articles one day.  One admin-like attribute I possess is the uncanny ability to identify faulty arguments which I consider to be wikilawyering and to point out the inconsistency/double standard in the executions of wikipedia policies by some members of the establishment (knowingly/unknowingly).


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A I’ve had a couple problems that aren’t too big of a deal. In fact, I wouldn’t call any of them “conflicts” since the users I have problem with are mostly editors who are not established. One problem that stands out is probably User:LionheartX and his sockpuppets who launched a harassment campaign against me and some userspace harassment from anonymous IPs. There are also a group of radicals from WikiProject:China who made a coordinated attempt (unsuccessfully) to boot me off the project. Most of them are banned now (but I do expect a few oppose votes from these people). But again, whenever there should be disputes, I will deal it with a cool head. Admins are there to make knowledgeable judgments and to let the people who seek to destabilize the project know that they will not be treated with kid-gloves.

General comments

 * Links for Certified.Gangsta:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Certified.Gangsta before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) yesssss  naerii -  talk  05:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I'm sorry, but I must oppose you. You've taken a lot of shit, but that's no excuse for you to return incivility with incivility. I'd like you to stay cooler more often.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) You've crossed the line there. You might have been frustrated/annoyed but this is an unacceptable edit summary for an editor, let alone an admin. Remember WP:NPA; telling another editor to "get a life" is disruptive. &mdash;Dark talk 05:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and also, the addition of unencyclopedic statements such as this, and the tabloid journalistic way in which it was written makes me question your understanding of Wikipedia's policies. &mdash;Dark talk 05:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I agree with Bibliomaniac and DarkFalls - plus it appears that you have hardly edited at all for the past 5 months and not a great deal from July 2007. Come back once these two items are fixed and I will reconsider. Best wishes.-- VS  talk 05:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I don't believe the candidate has the proper temperament to be an admin. On November 29, 2007, prior to a short lived retirement, Certified.Gangsta made a series of edits that, when read sequentially, reads "Fuck LionheartX, burn in hell, good bye." I shudder to think of the creative ways he will be uncivil with the extra buttons. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose too little activity (<50 edits) in the past 4 months --Stephen 05:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Looks like some sort of Wiki-warrior. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. and after ec #@, per Bongwarrior Dloh  cierekim'''  05:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose' - From that diff alone, no. But per Bongwarrior, absolutely not.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:33, 6 June 2008 (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.
 * 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.