The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, request for checkusership, or request for oversightship. Please do not modify it.
Closed as successful. User promoted. --vector ^_^ (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegoblin7[change source]

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

End date: January 7, 2010, 14:42 UTC

Hi there! I’m here today to nominate Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs) for adminship here on simple (again). You can probably remember that I did this already some months ago. I think he’s ready now to be a sysop again. He’s one of the most active users on DYK, PVGA and PGA. He’s doing a very good work in this areas and has nominated and written several good and very good articles for this project. He knows very well what an encyclopaedia is and what its aim is. He’s also active in tagging pages for deletions and reverting of vandalism. He’s shown that he can do a really good work even though that we had some troubles with him this/last year. I think he has matured since this/last year and his last RfA. Our project will surely benefit from him if we give him the mop back. Good luck!

--Barras talk 14:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: After much thought about whether or not this will pass or fail or whether I want the tools or not, I have decided to run for adminship and accept Barras' kind nomination. If it passes then that's great, if it fails then it's no big deal and I will accept it and get on with my work across the wiki - it really doesn't mean much to me if it fails or not. Thanks again, Goblin 14:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Addition: Also, in the event this fails I won't be running again. I have no real desire to have the tools or not and they are not a big deal to me; I just view them as being useful. I was sure I wrote this when I accepted, but seemingly not. Goblin 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Support[change source]

  1. --Barras talk 14:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Per the same reason I supported last time. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support As I said last time, all the drama we had is long gone, and BG7 continues to be one of our most active and most dedicated editors. He's learned from the mistakes, and I'm sure we won't see them again. Best of luck.--Gordonrox24 | Happy Holidays! 14:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Despite his previous issues, I think he's learned his lesson and has matured enough to responsibly use the tools once again. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I trust him. Kennedy (talk • changes). 19:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I second Gordonrox24's reason. I also think that he had learned from his mistakes in the past and I read his message he made once about his personal feelings to specific Wikipedians here (sorry no diff at the moment) and it got to me somewhat. Also per Jamesofur's whynot. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 21:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the benefit of others, it can be seen here in it's final state before archival. Goblin 21:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
  7. Support. --Jenna talk § 22:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a few concerns, but nothing to prevent me from supporting an otherwise excellent candidate. Best of luck. ···Katerenka (討論) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Moving, sorry :\[reply]
  8. Willing to give this user another chance. Majorly talk 01:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - A great editor, and is willing to avoid making mistakes in the future. Nifky^ 05:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - I'm still a bit worried about your tendency to be uncivil, but I earnestly hope that you'll keep it in check. Please avoid the word "drama". The phrase "it doesn't need the dramafied discussion" is more likely to cause drama than prevent it. I've noticed that >50% of the drama on this wiki is caused be comments about drama (such as the one I'm making right now), so please avoid getting involved in it as much as possible. I'd hate to have to unflag you! Aside from that, you're a very knowledgeable and consistent contributor and you definitely put a lot of work into this wiki. I'm glad to have you as an editor here and hope you have a successful RfA. Good luck! EhJJTALK 06:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC) (I hope there's still a crat around to close this ;) )[reply]
    Thanks for your comments EhJJ. I do try to stay away from drama as much as possible, and I am sure users will have noticed an overall reduction in my activity and specifically participation in discussions at ST, AN and RfDs for the reason that I believe that many are drama creating discussions. That said though, if I feel that someone is creating an unnecessary fuss such as the recent example that you've given, I will mention that there is no reason for such discussion, however I would not use my tools to enact such views - though again in the given example I would have restored the page and userfied it. Thanks for your support. Regards, Goblin 14:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]
  11. Support - a pleasure working on good content with you here, and I think, despite the odd "moment", you want nothing than the best for this Wikipedia. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. As nominator of his previous RFA, I have no doubt about his skills and intentions. Good content writer as well as vandal fighter who will help the wiki if he becomes an admin. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Yes. Yottie =talk= 17:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I fully trust him and I know he will not misuse the tools. Megan McCarty|talkchanges 17:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support While I have some concerns, I do not believe that he will use admin tools incorrectly. I think we should start the New Year with positive thoughts. I thought for a long time about this rfa, but BG7 has skills and abilities which would be of benefit to this wiki. Learn from the past, but let's keep looking to the future. Peterdownunder (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - He has definitely learned from his own mistakes. Chenzw  Talk  14:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - I may not have been around recently but my past experiences of this user has been positive. Understand the oppose votes but think this user will make a good admin. NotGiven 21:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote struck, Sockuppet. Details to follow. Kennedy (talk • changes). 11:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support The sentiments above outweigh the concerns below --Chris 03:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I thought long and hard about this and for a while thought about both opposing or staying neutral. I would be lying if I said I didn't agree with a lot of what is written below. Do I have concerns? Of course I do. There is no doubt that Goblin has had a bit of a hot temper and that we don't want that. I also think that he has been much better recently then I was expecting, much better. In the end I think I'm going to have to go with my whynot idea. In the end I think I'm willing to give him another chance, I wasn't last time and I think I was right. I personally will have no problem blocking him if I think he steps to far out of line, and publicly warning him (once) if he steps even a bit out of line. James (T|C) 06:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support because he has been a great help for this wiki and he responds to any request made on talk pages.  Kaltxì Na'vi!  12:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. [sigh] :-) fr33kman talk 07:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support and also hoping it's not too late IP82 aka ONaNcle (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support --vector ^_^ (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, hope he has learnt from the previous mistakes he made. --Mercy (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Per Majorly, really, but please don't use the tools in a content dispute. -- Mentifisto 14:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[change source]

  1. Oppose per the fact that the user rather put up an article for deletion rather than trying to fix it.--Sinbad (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If an article is complex it generally meets our QD criteria and therefore can be deleted or tagged for deletion upon sight, and does not need to be fixed. Yes, some users could fix it, however I did not have the time to fix the article and this is not a wiki for complex pages, therefore I perfectly legitimately put the article up for quick deleteion. Thanks, Goblin 15:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]
    Just create articles that meet our criteria and are not complex. And btw, all do mistakes. It's not a big deal to tag an article wrong or delete it. Deletions can simply be undone. --Barras talk 15:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluegoblin7 displays poor judgment in use of the rollback feature ([1] [2] [3]). Rollback should never ever be used in content disputes. I don't think they can be trusted with adminship as far as rollback goes. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 19:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: User is currently blocked
    There is nothing wrong with my rollback of all three diffs - the first two are spam links to external sites, while the third was vandalism and not suitable for the article, as far as I could make out. Also, is this oppose not slightly hypocritical, as I know your yourself really do fail to use rollback correctly... Goblin 19:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]
     (change conflict)  The first two are clearly spam of a website and the third one is cleary POV (both also called vandalism). I agree with the rollback use there. --Barras talk 19:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     (change conflict)  Also, where does content dispute come into it? Goblin 19:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
    The biggest example would be that I see this as unsourced information, and "unsourced" information is a content dispute. Hopefully, I'm clear. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 19:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And to add to my oppose, this is clearly a content dispute. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 19:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Edward is the typical example of an abusive boyfriend and Also, according to MyLifeIsAverage, Edward displays six of seven characteristics of a sociopath.. The first is POV and the second is unencyclopaedic gibberish. The rollback seems ok to me. --Barras talk 19:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The last diff is reverting an enwiki c&p. It's a copyvio and the rollback is therefore ok for me. --Barras talk 19:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongly oppose - has a tendency to be bitey and uncivil when under stress. Also he's had a history of unblocking himself when he had the tools last time, twice, which is wheel waring not to mention unacceptable, what assurance from the user up here that this won't happen again?--  † CR90  01:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While i'd agree with the latter in days gone by, i've never bitten anyone, under stress or otherwise, so I'd appreciate it if you could provide some diffs of this. Goblin 02:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
    Please read my acceptance statement, my comments on other opposes and the diff linked under Brian's support. Unblocking myself was a hot-headed, momentary lapse in judgement and me taking what the blocker said too literally. Unblocking yourself is not only wheel-warring, but it goes against the ethos of the Administrator tools and the trust that the community has invested in you. "A history" how ever does not mean two occasions - that's two occasions. I'm also surprised that you've only just decided to make a fuss about this, when it's been known since it happened and indeed at the start of this RfA. Anyway, that's besides the point. Thanks for your comments regardless, and I can assure that such cases of unblocking myself won't occur again because, um, I'm not going to get blocked again. Regards, Goblin 12:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
    Change to strongly oppose per temper and PA's administered on IRC.--  † CR90  06:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose; the block log is bigger than several problem users; when things don't go the right way or when certain users do 'stupid' things, he gets vocal and hungry. This has happened more than once, with 'saner' periods in between, both on-wiki and meatspace. I worry that this is one of the saner periods, approaching a lapse, and, deswegen, I cannot in good conscience support a candidate if I have any doubt that this might recur: the drama that would happen after Bluegoblin7 blocks a user in the middle of a rant would be severely detrimental to the wiki as a whole. I like BG7, and I wish to remain friends, but RfAs are nothing to do with friendship. — μ 02:23, Friday January 1 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comments MC8. I appreciate that in the past I have become incivil when i've been annoyed by other users, however as I have explained elsewhere in this RfA and elsewhere I can confidently say that such behaviour has gone away for a number of reasons - and that's completely ignoring the fact that, per my last unblock, i'm on a one-strike rule. To explain my block log, the first two were un-related collateral damage regarding a cross-wiki issue with a now permanantly banned user. The Jan 09 blocks were me trying to get away from Wikipedia as I was, at the time, slightly addicted. The next four were all a large misunderstanding which was later agreed to be the fault of a few users, but mostly myself, and was the one time that I abused the admin tools. The next was sat out - though I still contest the reasons and the obvious COI behind it - whilst the next two were also misunderstandings and trigger happiness - though I agree I was in the wrong. The most recent - which was shortened - was probably the one that I deserved the most and is one of the major factors in my still being here, imo at least. It made me realise a number of things, both wiki and otherwise, but for more on that see the diff under Brian's support. I appreciate that you may have concerns however I can 100% assure you - my position on the wiki being probably the ultimate guarantee - that this is a "sane" phase for good - as I know you well off-wiki too i'm willing to divulge the IRL circumstances more-so - likewise if anyone wants to know more just email me. Finally though, I find your statement about me blocking a user mid-rant quite offensive, as my previous tools never showed any such actions and nor would I do such a thing, as it would be a gross misusage of tools and go against the entire ethos of Wikipedia, imho. Whilst I may have a rant at users in the past, I would never once have used any administrative tools to enforce anything, as not only would that imply that I had more "power" than other users - which admins most certainly do not - but it would be unfair on the user as it would be something that they would have nothing to 'defend' so to speak. The admin tools are not for personal gain or for settling personal disputes, they are for helping the wider wiki in general and not using in anything related to you; except in circumstances such as I have outlined elsewhere in this RfA. Nonetheless, thank you for your comments, and yes, we are still friends. Goblin 02:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
    (Expanding on my previous argument) I've also just noticed that, as of right now, BG7 was last unblocked 1 month, 20 days ago. A user running for adminship after such as short amount of time is unacceptable. I view being blocked as a disqualification of editing (driving analogy: users have to retake their test): and, so, users that have been blocked should wait out the rudimentary three months as if they were a new user. As an aside, if you take the driving licence analogy further, three penalty points for each (proper) block; your licence would be revoked twice over. And, although it was a while ago, unblocking yourself is an instant /kb. A one-strike rule is irrelevant to this discussion: if anything it shows that, if such procedures are needing to be put in place, something is clearly wrong. — μ 17:25, Saturday January 2 2010 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per MC8. I cannot trust a user who has been blocked so recently for adminship. Razorflame 08:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Oppose, mostly per MC8. FSM Noodly? 20:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, after examining BG7's contributions since the block further, I feel that EhJJ's concerns are a valid concern, and at this point, I don't want an administrator demonstrating that type of attitude. IMO Administrators should be users of a high regard, and I don't think BG7 meets that regard at the moment. I still wish him the best as an editor, but just can't support at the moment. Sorry, Griffinofwales (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um. Diffs please. If you are making claims against my conduct then please, direct me to them. I can think of none, and tbh I see many current admins making statements similar to my "don't make drama claims". Diffsdiffsdiffs. Goblin 20:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
    What does it matter that current administrators are not voicing Griffin's concerns? Last time I checked, administrators' opinions weren't weighted against other users'. — μ 23:12, Sunday January 3 2010 (UTC)
    He doesn't have to provide diffs. That is optional. If they don't put them then the 'crat making the decision might take their point less seriously, but it's not required. FSM Noodly? 20:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I know, that's why i'm asking for diffs. I wouldn't want his vote to be discounted for him not giving enough evidence. That would be unfair. If he doesn't, it's up to him, but all I'm saying is both me and the closing crat would like to see some. Goblin 20:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
  7. Essentially per MC8, though there are other things. Watching this user's edits more closely the past few days, they seem to be the cause of more "drama" than they solve, which is a bad quality in an admin. Sorry. ···Katerenka (討論) 22:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I want you to know that I really did think hard on this one. I am probably willing to eventually support, but MC8 sums up alot of what I am thinking on the situation. Normally any block in the past year would make me very likely to oppose a candidate, nevermind as recently as yours. Also I do think you bring up alot more drama than you try and stop by such comments as linked above. Jumping in on the discussion about Katerenka not wanting to overturn Majorlys delete was simply not necessary and didn't stop any drama but made the situation even worse. Definitely a not now vote as opposed to a not ever. I too am worried about the cycles, and if he is on a good swing and soon to be on a bad swing. I would like a larger sample size of time to make a better decision. -DJSasso (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per MC8. —§ stay (sic)! 22:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

  1. It's only been two months since his last one, and between then and now, he's been blocked Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware about the situation. I was one of the users who agreed with the block (and still think the block was ok). His last RfA was around October. I was also one of the people who opposed his last RfA. I wouldn't nominate someone when I'm not sure that the user will use the tool wisely. I know about the reasons for the troubles with him. I'm sure that he's matured since his last RfA and has improved his behaviour. I see him nearly every day on wiki as well as off wiki on IRC. I can't remember any bad from him on/off wiki as it was the case shortly before his fourth RfA and the block. When he run last time for the tools, he wasn't calm enough to be an admin. His edits after the block and the RfA cleary show that he's changed since then. I wouldn't nominate him if I wouldn't be sure that he will not abuse the tools. Even thought the block just was in November, I think the things has changed since then. He knows when he should delete something or block someone. He's never really abused his tools. He's a former admin here and has done a good job with the tool. The only wrong decision he's made was in summer (August?) when he did a mass deletion without flood flag. And just as a side note: if he's a sysop, it's not a reason to not block him if needed. Just an explanation why I think he should get the mop (back), even if his last RfA is just two months ago and that he was blocked in November. Best --Barras talk 18:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to comment on this too, a lot was going on in my life around then and I was just frustrated with various things. The block was certainly something that gave me a shock and i'm sure it's shown people wrong who were saying "He'll be back to normal next week". My life as a whole is a lot more settled now and there is nothing that I can see that is going to disturb that. As Barras said I have only had once incident with the admin tools - with flood flag back in August - and while I do still agree with my own actions in that (i.e. not using flood flag because my edits were being discussed) - and would do the same in the future - I admit that I did not handle the solution as well as I could have done and should have firstly asked for clarification on the flood flag policy (which has now been done) and also talked through with the other administrators that were about at the time. While i'm not make excuses, I feel the whole event was a blown out of proportion by both myself but also some trigger-happy new admins, and actually as a result of that incident multiple people have learned and become better editors - myself more than any of them. Hope this helps to quash your concerns, though I understand if you oppose because of the timings. Like I say, if it fails i'm not really too fussed and will continue editing regardless. Thanks, Goblin 18:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
    Note that I didn't say that this was a reason you should or shouldn't be an admin (If it was, I would have voted oppose) Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a valid concern and if someone wanted to oppose because of it then that is completely fine and I would understand why. Thanks for bringing it up and for giving me the opportunity to further explain. Regards, Goblin 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![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