The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship, request for bureaucratship or request for checkusership that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
If you are going to oppose per the AN/Sockpuppetery thing, either don't bother, or accept that i'm not going to comment on it. Just read my comments to other people. I want to assure everyone that nothing is going to happen in regards to that. I'm going to contact everyone who has opposed per that with an impersonal email (where they have one enabled) with information relating to this. Thanks, BG7even 19:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegoblin7[change source]

Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs)

End date: 11.34 25th January 2009

Nomination: I am nominating Bluegoblin7 for adminship. BG7 has helped out T:DYK and WP:SN a great deal. If it weren't for him, I feel both would have died a long time ago. He creates many articles, including Crich Tramway Village which will hopefully become a good article soon! I have checked his deleted edits, and believe he has at least 78 QD tags in the article space alone. He contributes at RfD, WP:ANI, Simple Talk, WP:RA, WP:PGA, WP:VGA, WP:RFA, WP:VIP and WP:WANT, he s also a judge at Wikicup,. He also runs two bots. So, to summarise, he has need for the delete tool, the protect tool and the block tool. I have absolutely no doubt that he will be a great admin, he will not abuse the tools. I trust him fully, and I am delighted to nominate him for adminship. Kennedy (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I humbly accept, thanks for nominating me Kennedy! BG7even 11:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Note: I welcome and indeed want questions relating to adminship. I will answer them fully. For those who wish to see my work with the flag elsewhere, please see the english ScoutWiki, TrainSpottingWorld, PlaneSpottingWorld and YourWiki (where I am currently most active). Thanks, BG7even 13:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[change source]

  1. Strongly support as nom Kennedy (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongly support Created lots of pages, has 3, 200 edits (more than me)! TurboGolf 11:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strongly support - Yep, great editor, great vandalism fighter, contributes a lot to DYK, SN and the wikicup. He won't do anything wrong with the tools. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 11:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - per above. Chenzw  Talk  12:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as conom. FRSign Here 17:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strongly support as it's not a big deal. TheAE talk 19:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Perfect for the job.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 01:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support - Looks much like an admin to me. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 05:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support - This editor is well intentioned and I have no reason to oppose. Promethean (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak support Read the points in my now stricken weak oppose. Add all of the good experiences I've had with you. AGF, WTHN. Really need to leave. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 12:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for AGFing Shapiros. If it passes, I won't let you down! BG7even 12:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak support Be careful if this RfA passes. Malinaccier P. (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for AGFing. If I feel that an action could be controversial, I will check with another admin first. I will always be open to recall, trouting, and, if it was deemed needed, de-mopping. Thanks, BG7even 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak support If this passes, I would advise you to think before you act. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt on this. Razorflame 14:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As what I said above to Malinaccier ;) BG7even 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support - If anyone had helped me get started here the most, it would be him. Kudos to DYK work. ;) Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[change source]

  1. I like BG7 personally, and would support in the future, but right now there are too many issues to preclude my support. This month he decided to leave the project for six months, and created what I can only call a "scene" on AN when asking admins to block his account. This was as a result of addiction, which I understood because of the real life issues he mentioned there (even though I opposed the block). After this he evaded his own addiction by creating an undeclared sockpuppet account. I'm sorry, but all this is too recent, and if the real life issues were as serious as they were made out to be on AN, I cannot possibly support this RfA at the present time, as I explained privately before this was transcluded. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments Peter. I admit that I did blow the whole thing out of proportion. I genuinely was feeling as bad as a made out (possibly worse). I may not have made this clear but my reason for returning early is after speaking to people who know this sort of stuff, and they said I should do as many things as possible that I enjoy - Wikipedia being one. This week has gone smoothly, my exam went well, my birthday too. I can safely say that my RL issues will not be affecting my work on wiki (especially with my new laptop, allowing higher activity) and that if I ever feel I cannot handle it I will resign the flag. Thanks, BG7even 12:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I agree with PeterSymonds here. The partial drama of just a few weeks ago, coupled with the sockpuppetry that followed it, are not the behaviour I think we should be seeing out or administrators. On top of that, I feel like there are too many ownership issues, especially with DYK. Either way (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already explained that, and you should know that I am one of the biggest haters of drama. It's the one thing that annoys me more than anything about Wikipedia, and I like it how there is very little here. Also, could you explain how I have ownership issues with anything, DYK in particular? I have never claimed ownership on it, and indeed I never will. My actions are for the good of the project and keep it fair and with consensus. Thanks, BG7even 13:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion in particular is reflective of the ownership attitude I'm referring to: User_talk:Either_way#DYK. You came in and told me "I'll let it go this time." The discussion there has an air of "That's not the way I want it on DYK, so you have to fix it to my ideas" even though the rules of DYK stated otherwise. Either way (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a heat of the moment thing and I didn't mean it in that sense. I apologise for it. I also understand what you are saying about the rules, at the time I was the only person on the DYK "back end" so there was no reason to have them written down. They had also not been officially agreed (there was no-one active to agree them with) but I had discussed them with several well established users on IRC and they all agreed on them. I think I did also bring them up at ST. As you can see though, I have now brought it up at DYK? and will be looking to "publish" them today to avoid backlog developing further. Thanks, BG7even 13:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See, that's exactly what I mean about ownership. You didn't think rules needed to be "written down" because you're the only one who needs to make those decisions in your mind. So when people follow the rules that are written down, you get mad because they're not what you want. Now you say you're going to "publish" them today, but I see no such consensus for the change of the rules (perhaps you can point me towards one that I'm missing). Either way (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, i'm sorry for what I said on your talk page. I acted badly and I should have just casually mentioned it rather than making an accusation. I was wrong. As for the rules, I am first going to ping everyone at Wikipedia:Did you know for their input and see if there is any more. As I see it, no-one has opposed to my proposed changes at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, only suggested ways in which they can be improved, all of which I personally agree with, and anyone else is welcome to make. Thanks, BG7even 14:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I am torn. I would have totally supported you before that request. But at the moment I don't think I can. Take some more time to totally get your personal life straight as it takes presedence and then request again. -Djsasso (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, another funny oppose. He's said he's got his parsonnal life straight. Are you here at simple just to oppose things so that it doesn't get to popular? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 13:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yot, keep the topics relevant to this RfA. I'd hate to court marshal you. --Gwib -(talk)- 13:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was called using tact and using a nicer way to say the exact same thing the two people above me said. And I am starting to think I should have opposed you as you are showing you definately lack the maturity to be an admin. -Djsasso (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Djasso, thank you for your comments. As I said above my personal life is sorted out and there is nothing that could affect the wiki or that the wiki could affect. Your comments are appreciated. Thanks, BG7even 14:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I was going to support, but was reminded of the "please block me" incident, and the sockpuppetry that followed. Sorry, perhaps once you've shown a little more stability :) Majorly talk 15:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Majorly: As I have said, I went OTT with that whole incident. I assure the wiki communty that I am now getting help and it will not happen again. If there is any ever reason that it should, and btw there isn't at the moment, nor should there be, I will resign the flag until another time. As for the sockpuppetery, again it was wrong but it wasn't block evasion or anything wrong. It was more an account that I could use without strings/obliations attatched that I could use until I felt ready to fully edit again. I always planned on declaring it once I was back, and indeed I did declare it to several users, and asked them to give this information to the CUs, as per RtV policy. Yes, maybe it was rushed, stupid etc, and I apologise for that. But now believe me that my life is stable, i'm not going to sock again, and if I do ever screw up in anyone's eyes, feel free to de-sysop me, trout slap me, block me or whatever. This isn't meant to be making me sound desperate or whatever either, just to show you I can be trusted (I hope my work elsewhere shows that) and that I have no more issues in my life) Thanks, BG7even 16:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop badgering me! Yes, I know, but it was so recent. I'd like a little more time with some stability. Majorly talk 16:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strongly oppose Was told on the 13th about GFDL compliance and stated understanding. He also stated understanding on AN and that he was fully aware of the GFDL requirements. *After* stating understanding, the editor still has not corrected, or asked for deletion of those articles. Granted the editor is busy, but the articles can not exist as copyright violations. The editor should have asked for deletion so that he could redo them at a later time as compliant articles. The editor in a dispute with me, demonstrated a propensity to edit war, rather than come to my talk page and discuss. Revert 1 and Revert 2 Edit summaries are not for discussion. Everything does not require a consensus to insert, as stated in this edit summary. Editor has demonstrated ownership. DYK, Wikicup, and Wikinews was not his to "take back". The editor also recently misunderstood the reason we block. Blocking is done for prevention. I can not support where the editor was also very recently willing to scramble the password to his account. The creation of the sock User:Dreadnought59. One account, one editor. Otherwise, the editor does very good work here, and is a valuable contributor.
    To summarize:
    1) Copyright and GFDL issues
    2) Propensity to edit war
    3) Does not discuss first, discusses in edit summaries
    4) Believes consensus is always needed to implement
    5) Ownership ("take back")
    6) Misunderstanding of the blocking tool
    7) Recent erratic conduct (block me or I'll bjork the account)
    8) Sockpuppetry
    NonvocalScream (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note the editor has now (actually at the time of this writing is fixing) his GFDL non compliant articles. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments, to reply if I may?
    1) I am fixing it now with GBot2
    2) I'm sorry but I disagree with this. I don't see how I was edit warring. I undid a change, and a substantial one at that, that didn't have consensus.
    3) I admit I should have discussed it first, however I did make my edit summary clear and indeed you could also have come to me after the first revert. I know that edit summaries are not for discussion, because they can be openly missed and transparency is a lovely thing ;)
    4) Wrong. I don't think that consensus is always implemented. I'm a big fan of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. However, in those circumstances it was a big change that needed community discussion. I don't see how giving credit can be implemented without a discussion, especially as it was previously discussed and deemed not needed.
    5) Ah. Right. I don't actually mean anything by that, it's an in-joke with some editors on IRC. I can explain more if needed, but those involved know what I am talking about. Maybe I should have made that clearer.
    6) I don't misunderstand the blocking tool, but there was a misunderstanding. I thought I remembered a circumstance where a user had been blocked for the same thing, but I was wrong. I have already apologised for making drama over it.
    7) It wasn't "if you don't block me I will b0rk my account", it was "if you don't block me I will have to look at other ways, one of which may be account b0rking". It would never be permanant as I would still leave an email address set in my preferences for recovery.
    8) I've already explained the puppetery in this, and i'm fully aware that it is wrong. I acted in the heat-of-the-moment, and it was a mistake.
    Thanks, BG7even 18:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As to #7, the exact phase use was Well the latter isnt an option, so i'll have to password b0rk and retire the BG7 account... unless i could get a global account lock... [1]. --Creol(talk) 06:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I like BG7, and he seems like a nice guy. However, I'm probably with Majorly here. Great user, but I've been reminded about a few... slips. Good user, but there are strong reasons against. Not enough to make me type "strong" anywhere, but too much for me to type "weak". Sidenote 1: I saw this RfA as WP:RFA/Bluegoblin 7, and was wondering who User:Bluegoblin was, and how I'd managed to miss six other of his RfAs. Sidenote 2: What's with the voting templates?! MC8 (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments MC8. Could you possibly expand on the slips, if not already mentioned? Thanks, BG7even 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    <quote>I was going to support, but was reminded of the "please block me" incident, and the sockpuppetry that followed. Sorry, perhaps once you've shown a little more stability :) Majorly talk 15:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)</quote> MC8 (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose — Recent issues that occurred at WP:AN, along with sockpuppetry as mentioned above, is not the behaviour I expect in administrators and only shows poor judgment. And I do believe Bluegoblin thinks he has ownership of DYK probably because he supposedly "started" it. Either way (talk · contribs) above mentions what Bluegoblin said that makes me feel he is claiming ownership, and there are several other instances that could prove he is trying to claim ownership. Doesn't matter who started it, it is the communities' DYK, and no one person claims ownership of it. Even if he does not mean to claim ownership, what he said ("That's not the way I want it on DYK, so you have to fix it to my ideas", etc.) demonstrated poor judgment from my side. This is just what I believe, and yes, I've seen Bluegoblin say he is not trying to claim ownership of it, but I just don't trust him enough to assume that, nor do I trust him as an administrator at this time. Otherwise, he has done fine contributions to Simple English Wikipedia, but still requires more time and work before I can trust him as an administrator. — RyanCross (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryan, thanks for your comments. I'm not going to say anything regarding AN etc, its said above. To raise your other points, I don't own DYK. Afaik I have never said that on wiki. What we have got now is a process that has been built by the community, for the community. No one person has dictated what has happened with it. I have already commented on Either way's point, I can elaborate further if needed. Could you please give your other fears?
    I never said the quote you have given, and certainly never meant to imply/infer it. Yes what I said on Either way's talk was probably badly thought out, but at the time my mind was half on revision and half on wiki, and I thought it would be better to say/discuss something (something that was raised by NVS I think, about discussing) rather than just removing it and not giving an explanation.
    I'm not begging, as I know I can (and will) come back again if I fail, but give me this week to prove that I can be trusted. If it's not longing enough, fine. If it doesn't work, fine. But i'm not claiming ownership of DYK, I would never use the tools to settle disputes or anything like that (if that's what anyone is thinking), and I think my work elsewhere (especially at YourWiki, where I also have things like Oversight, CheckUser etc) proves that I will not misuse the tools. Thanks, BG7even 19:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you did say what you said on Either way's talk page demonstrated poor judgment in my opinion. If you would never use the tools to settle disputes (even towards your own advantage), then can you somehow prove it? You have not proven anything to me since the issues that recently came up. Also, YourWiki and the other projects you are an administrator at are entirely different projects and have no connection to the Wikimedia Foundation. Their standards are much different than Simple English Wikipedia's standards are. Does not matter how trusted you are over there, what matters is how much you are trusted here. I wouldn't care if you were the most trusted admin over there. Now, to sum it all up, I simply do not trust you yet due to your poor judgment in recent incidents. Simple as that. — RyanCross (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fully aware that YourWiki etc are not WMF projects, I simply listed them to show I had experience with the tools, and had not abused them elsewhere.
    As for proving that I wouldn't use the tools to my own advantage, the ony way I can think of is for you to ask some "What if?" questions and for me to ask them. However, I dont suppose that's what you are looking for so... However if you can think of any, or if that is acceptable, fire away. BG7even 20:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with PeterSymonds. The recent issues are hard to overlook. Juliancolton (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank for your voice on this matter. Just a question: is there a particular part that you feel more strongly about than others, that you could elaborate on, and/or would you consider supporting another RfA in the future once I have proved the issues that I have commented on, i.e. RL stability and non-ownership? Thanks, BG7even 12:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose Socking is not how an administrator should do. Therefore, I must strongly oppose. FRSign Here 22:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Six hours ago you co-nommed him and supported him. What has changed your mind in the last six hours? Does this relate, at all, to BG7 removing your co-nom about 10 minutes before you opposed? Either way (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And you're really one to talk, FR. Or should I say StaticFalcon/ShockingHawk. Majorly talk 22:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I didn't know he socked when I supported him. 2. No, it isn't because he removed my conom. 3. MAjorly, leave me alone. What have I done to you. (FastReverter) 173.68.112.184 (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it very distasteful for a nominator or co-nominator to oppose after commiting such nomination. Did you not vet your candidate? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Wow. FastReverter: You oppose your candidate after nominating. Nice, real nice. BG, you're level of stability right now is an issue to me. Not far back you said block me or I may go insane and even seemed suicidal. Please straighten out your life and get better nominators that don't oppose. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FR it really ticks me off when a nom opposes. It especially ticks me off when you say: I didn't know! Do your damn homework before nominating ѕwirlвoy ₪ 03:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments. I've outlined the main points in previous replies above, but to just say one thing, I am stable. My life is stable. I have spoken with several experts and they say i'm stable. I suppose I just need to prove that to the Simple Community. Funny how one wrong move can completely change someone's opinion of someone else. <---Not aimed at anyone in particular, random musing/observation ;) BG7even 12:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose First you asked on WP:AN if you could be blocked for 6 months, and then you created the sockpuppet User:Dreanought59. TurboGolf 08:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose I don't want to have to do this. I mean nothing personally against you. But, I think this is bad timing for you. I just don't feel comfortable supporting someone for admin who just asked for a 6-month block. If you really felt you needed a break, and there were/are things going on in RL, than I don't think that now is a good time to request adminship. However, I will be fully open to supporting in the future. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 12:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) That's fine, I understand what you are saying. I'm sure you've read my explanations above, so I won't mention it again, but i'll just say that I am ready, there isn't anything in RL that will affect wiki judgement, and life is good ;) All the best, BG7even 12:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also commented on your !vote change, please read both ;) BG7even 12:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Petersymonds, Nonvocalscream and RyanCross. Too many issues that are happening right now that make me unable to support you at this time. You do not show the proper judgement that I would like to see from administrators and you do not show the stability that an administrator needs. Events such as that that happened on WP:AN is just another kick in the side and did not help your cause and sockpuppetry is definitely not good for an administrator to do. Sorry, but that, coupled with the ownership issues at WP:DYK, make me oppose at this time. I am not saying that you don't help this Wikipedia (which you do). You have been very helpful in the mainspace and with making new articles, however, when going for the sysop flag, I like to see good in the areas that administrators deal with quite often, which includes blocking/banning, vandalism fighting, protection, and deletion. The point that Synergy made below is valid: If you don't know that 14/2/2 is a concensus, then I have doubts that you might not know when there is a consensus for any other issues that could arise on here. You do great vandalism fighting (out of the contribs that I went through), but again, stability and having good judgement are needed here because you need to know when a block is needed and for how long. In short, I would have supported you if you knew the things in those areas, however, at this time, an oppose is warranted. Razorflame 03:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)I am striking my vote here because I definitely believe in second chances. Razorflame 14:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments. I will reply further when I have more time. Thanks, BG7even 11:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose He didn't know that 14/2/2 was a consensus (on ST), thus I doubt he'll be able to close RfD's. His socking didn't help much, and if he didn't know we don't block by request I can't see how he'd fair during vandal sprees. He does some great work with articles, and is a big help in the project namespace but I don't think he's ready. Also per most of the above. Synergy 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Synergy, I do know what consensus is, I just didn't feel that in that case it was after weighing in the arguments for and against'. I felt that there were issues raised. As it was, I should have stayed out of determining the Consensus, as I was one of the people bringing up the bulk of the opposition arguments, with my neutral !vote. If you look at my work at RfD, or rather my NAC Speedy Keeps, you'll see I can determine consensus. I'd like to ask if it would be ok for me to mention on RfDs from now on whether or not they would be keeps or deletes (or some other form) to show that I do know what consensus is. Also, as i've said, asking for a block was a mistake. I'm fully aware of when to block/not block, and while I know it doesn't mean anything my work at other wikis shows this. Thanks for the comments, I hope to solve them and return in a few months ;) BG7even 11:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. : Strong oppose (Counted as comment, user is too new here --Eptalon (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC) ) Has been plagiarising railway articles from the main wikipedia. Was a disruptive editor on the main wikipedia and had major issue with WP:OWN. Wanted to add his own pictures to every railway article, removing pictures from others, yet the quality and relevance of his pictures was poor in comparison. Seemed to use wikipedia as an extension of his personal ego. Plagiarism is the sign of an editor wo takes the easy path in life rather than making any originbal contribution. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC) - While this users comments may be considered in the final decision if needed, the actual vote will not count as this is only the 3rd edit from this account. (see: here) --Creol(talk) 08:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    Firstly, I haven't been plagiarising. All have been credited to en.wp and I will now be working on expanding them out of stubs with original content. Also, technically it iSecondly, I have never disrupted the english.wp in the ways that this user is saying (I can get multiple users to back me up on this) and I haven't had any OWNY issues. I have never ever ever wanted to add any of my images to railway articles because I don't feel the need too. I have uploaded very few as I prefer to not release them into the Public Domain, and when I do I upload them to Commons for all users to use if they wish to. The only time I have added my own images has been in tram related articles. Again, I can get back-up on this. I do not have a personal ego, indeed as some of you may know I actually care more about other people than I do myself - being close to failing my GCSEs because I have been fundraising is a testament to that. The same with Wikipedia - I use it to help other people. I am going to be investigating you, bhtpbank. If you are who I think you are, I suggest you stop trolling me cross-wiki. BG7even 10:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll be investigating who? NonvocalScream (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I'm investigating, to see if it is who I think it is, rather than another user. I will be happy to explain further off wiki. I do always AGF and I am doing so now, by investigating rather than making outright accusations. BG7even 12:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great. Investigate to yor hearts content. I think this is showing everyone how suitable a candidate that you are for being an Admin. Qualitite that spring to mind are grace under pressure, cool-headedness, thick-skinned, reflectfulness etc. Actually, scrub that ... you have none of those qualities, which is why you should never (ever, ever) be given the tools of an Admin. Bhtpbank (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an example of the plagiarism that I referred to. This [[2]] is the main Wiipedia article and this is the simpled wikipedia one British Rail Class 501. The first had ZERO edits by BG7, and yet in the simple wiki version ( a cut down version ), it is a new article, crafted and put to the community as original. Thats just dishonest plagiarism. In any other walk of life the person doing this would be expelled. Bhtpbank (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That sums up a very large number of articles here, alot of articles on this wiki start that way. Though they should atleast make mention in the edit summary "based on en article" -Djsasso (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See my response to #6 and my talk page. I genuinely forgot, never once said they were new articles, and have since credited them all with GoblinBot2. I'm fully aware what plagiarism is, and the rules of the GFDL. I've had my own copyrighted work plagiarised and i've worked with legal boffs on the GFDL at another wiki. Thanks, BG7even 20:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

FR did not ask to co-nom, he just did it. Neither BG7 nor I had any idea that he would. Please do not take his change from Strong Support and Co-nom to oppose as a bearing on BG7's ability. He should not have co-nominated, should not have strong supported and I have doubts he has thought his current vote through either. Kennedy (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this as begging/fixing or whatever, but I don't personally think that FR's support/oppose should be counted, as per what Kennedy has said. I don't mind what happens with the result, i've pretty much accepted that it is going to fail (Though i'm happy to be pleasantly surprised that it won't), so don't take that as me trying to boost my support percentage. It's just an observation ;) BG7even 12:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result[change source]

As per the discussion above, there are almost as many opposes as there is support. We are way off the 65% needed for adminship, probably closer to 50%. This is too little support that I can support granting the tools. Sorry, Bluegoblin7. Try to learn from what people have said ([[:WP:OWN] issues, tendency towards drama, perhaps issues with properly crediting EnWP (or other wikipedias). The final result is therefore not promoted. --Eptalon (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Category