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


Bluegoblin7

Bluegoblin7 (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)

End date: 11:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


Hello all. I would like to present to you Bluegoblin7 for adminship. He was a former admin who resigned his tools after this. He has never abused his tools as an admin. Thereafter, he had an unsuccessful RfA, where people opposed primarily because of an RfDA of NVS, with whom he had conflicts previously. However, from what I know, he has learned from the mistakes he has made and has improved. He has hundreds of QDs, several VIP reports and 2 VGAs and 1 GA apart from few DYKs. He also runs 4 bots, which help the project a lot. There's a lot of admin work to do and I think BG7 can only help us with it. Thank you, Pmlineditor ∞ 11:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept and thank Pmlinediter for the nomination. Please ask away questions and those of you with the admin tools I encourage you to look at my previous admin contributions as well. I also take this time to mention that if this fails I really could not care less, as I don't particularly want or need the tools, they would just be helpful to allow me to clear things up myself instead of others doing it for me. Ta, Goblin 11:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Support

  1. Strong support As nom. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The oppose from Barras simply looks vindictive, over a simple disagreement. Majorly talk 11:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can be sure that I don't vote out of revenge. It's an issue if I can trust someone. Please remember, that I also nominated him for adminship (I guess his second). Barras (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't trust him because he doesn't agree with you? Majorly talk 11:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only, but at all. I don't have the necessary trust in him. The linked things are only to demonstrate what I mean, otherwise would come the comment that I should look for diffs, so I thought I post the diffs directly. And btw, if I would act due to revenge, I had opposed several user's RFO. Barras (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it odd that you are accusing someone of doing this when you tend to lean towards doing that. -DJSasso (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this comment for me? Doesn't sound like it, but... not sure --Barras (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's why its not indented after your comment. Its indented after majorly's. -DJSasso (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's another baseless dig at me. Djsasso thinks I hold grudges, despite the complete lack of evidence, and clear cases of the opposite such as my nominations of such editors for adminship and such. I'll let him go on about it as much as he wants though, I stopped listening a while back. Majorly talk 12:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, you have even commented in a Rfx that you were opposing because you were opposed. How much more clear can you be? -DJSasso (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Has the best interests of the project at heart, and will surely be more careful this time around. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per the one above (although surely you do have a use for the tools?) -- Mentifisto 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support - I find him to be level headed and pedientated. (wikipedia orientated, its a new word I made up. Its yours, you can use it. Kennedy (talk • changes). 17:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. fr33kman talk 22:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. support - Per Julian. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I am pretty sure that I opposed last time because all of the drama was still all to fresh in our minds. Much time has passed, BG7 has once again proved his great worth to WP and simple and I can fully trust that this time around we will see the same hard work that we are used to seeing, without all the drama. Best of luck.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support - A no brainer really. I trust him and he probably cares more for the project than most of the other people who are already sysop. He isn't scared to face the consequences which may follow what he does. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Support - despite a few issues raised in the oppose section, I reckon I still trust this editor. иιƒкч? 02:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. He has the wiki's best interests at heart. I trust him with the tools. Chenzw  Talk  11:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per Chenzw. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose – He overtuns others decission and thinks an very clear case closure is not allowed and can’t read the demotion criteria correctly. He told me via PM on IRC that there are three weeks and I closed over one week earlier. At all it was two days earlier, all normal involved people stated already their opinion and there was no reason to wait longer. I don’t have any kind of trust in him. The mentioned issues on his last RFA are not fixed, it still lacks on communication skills. I can’t find any reason to support this request. Kind regards Barras (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm drawn to comment on this oppose mainly to help people not involved with the PAD process understand it better, and also further explain why I reverted the closure. The PAD process is in place to demote articles which no longer meet the (V)GA criteria, and is similar to the processes for promotion. However, I made a genuine mistake which I will hold my hands up to and thought that the discussions lasted for three weeks, like P(V)GA, when in fact it is only two. This is something that I will be addressing outside of this RfA, and IMO it's an easy mistake to make. However, had this been the only thing I would have left it be. However, Barras was also involved in the discussion and that goes against most guidelines when it comes to closing things - you should be uninvolved so that your ideas cannot be seen to have swayed the outcome - so this, I felt, was pretty major. Also, the apparant use of "SNOW" to close this discussion was also inappropriate - SNOW applies in highly clear-cut and voting cases, not in discussions where the outcome could still have changed in the few days left by a user fixing many of the concerns raised. Therefore, all of these issues coupled together I reverted Barras' changes and proceeded to tell him why I had done so. Admittedly I could probably have worded this better, but I don't see how I have not fixed the issue for lack of communication as this clearly is communication and three or so months ago I doubt that I would have even left that message, instead using edit summaries. Thanks for your comments though Barras. Regards, Goblin 12:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
  2. Oppose I haven't seen any change in the combative nature that BG7 has. If anything I have seen it get worse. He has been extremely uncivil to those he disagrees with or dislikes. This sort of behaviour is very unbecoming of an admin. Until it changes I will have to oppose. -DJSasso (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Too much drama, sorry. Not much has changed since your last RfA, and your provocation of drama on IRC; gross incivility to a fellow user in #wikipedia-simple, bordering on harassment; and your tendency to severely overreact to certain incidents, makes me doubt your suitability for adminship for quite a while yet. You do good work, but I don't trust not to repeat the actions that saw you desysopped in the first place. Sorry. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, per what Peter said. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, this users' combative nature has gotten worse over time and definitely is not what I want to see in an administrator. The difference provided above in which he overturns another administrators' decision is completely unacceptable as well from any prospective administrator. I do not feel comfortable with giving this user the sysop flag at this point in time. Razorflame 21:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Sorry, I can't support a user for adminship if I've been tempted recently to block for incivility. I don't think you understand the subtleties of en:WP:SPADE, WP:BOLD, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. You're a good editor and I appreciate the bot work, but I can't support you as an admin at this time. EhJJTALK 01:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong oppose for several reasons. For starters, the guy’s been blocked five times in the last 12 months [1]. He has been very incivil to other editors. He has bumbled closures repeatedly. He has at least twice threatened sysops. I echo Eh's concerns about Spade and Bold, and his mishandling of them is disturbing. Also, he has said that "Simple English Wikipedia sucks". I can't support this guy. Full stop Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose -

I'm sorry Goblin. You are a spectacular editor and contributer as a whole. Your articles and bots help to keep the entire project together in many ways and you can not be thanked enough for them.

However that being said, I can not support you as an admin right now. The first problem is easy: "I don't particularly want or need the tools" If you can say that in all honesty then I'm not sure I could support you regardless, at the very least it would be a neutral comment explaining why I can't support. If you don't want or need the tools there isn't any real reason to give them out. The sysop tools are just that, tools, they aren't needed by everyone: giving them out as a "reward" for contributions is silly, that isn't what they are for.

The biggest problem though is that to be totally honest I can't find the trust to give you the tools. I have seen time and time again not only a disregard for rules (which isn't totally bad) but a huge tendency to keep grudges and get overly uncivil and outright hostile towards other, well meaning, members of the community. Even when I completely agree with most of your concerns and am out right frustrated or annoyed by the activity of those users I end up more frustrated at your hostility. It is very difficult to cultivate good editors (who sadly do not all begin that way) when you are going to spit in there face over and over again. Part of the problem of course is your sysop actions in the past. [this] is just absurd for example, except under very very specific exemptions you should never unblock yourself it is the very definition of abuse of sysop powers and your edit sum (and the fact that 30 minutes later you [resigned]made it quite clear you knew that and didn't give a fuck. Unfortunately I don't think you've changed, comments like [[2]] are just unnecessary and you can occasionally get up to the point of outright public harassment on IRC to editors who are trying to do what's right even if they step on toes and do whats wrong occasionally. Even now you still routinely go after editors who you don't like specifically targeting them to call them out on their mistakes and try to get them "in trouble" in the community. I'm sorry, You are a great editor but I just can't be in anyway sure you won't abuse your admin tools again, which I think you've done in the past. This is already much longer then I wanted it to be so I'll cut it short here, but let me know if you want more. Jamesofur (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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