Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bluegoblin7 3

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bluegoblin7[change source]

Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs)

End date: 21 July 2009, 18:30UTC Ok, i've thought about it long and hard for the past few days, and i've decided to give an RfA a go, also after various nudges from various people. I think in the large my edits and admin actions in the past speak for themselves as to why I should re-gain the mop. Granted, i've made some mistakes, but then so has everyone. I admit that the recent debacle regarding flood flag was blown out of proportion - and that I am partly to blame - and I think now that the guidelines around this tool have been made clearer such an incident won't happen again. I understand that people may be apprehensive about re-granting me the tool, and I can fully understand any opposes that there may be because of this. If this fails, it fails, and to be honest i'm not that fussed if it passes or not. I can (and am) still help the encyclopedia in other ways (indeed, i'm turning my attention away from RfDs and discussions and more to content building) if I don't have the tools, and so it's really not a big deal to me. Primarily, I don't have to watch my G6s sitting in the QD cat for hours, nor do I have to patrol new pages without actually being able to click patrolled ;). Please do ask questions, and i'll do my best to answer them all. Anyway, comments please :) Goblin 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nickers![reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Goblin 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nickers![reply]

Support[change source]

  1. I've always supported BG7 and I still trust him; that's the most important thing. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support : He is a good and tested wikipedian with nearly 7500 edits on his credits...-- Deoxyribonucleic Acid 19:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I still have trust for BG7. He resigned his bit after he felt frustrated because he was wrongly blocked after he declined to discuss something that is not technically against policy with other admins. It is true that he should not have flooded Recent Changes and it is also true that he should have consulted with the other admins; ie: flooding RC. I can fully understand his frustration about being wrongly blocked and I think others may also have given back their bit had the same thing happened to them. I agree that BG7 can be rash at times, such as threatening to delete all one line stubs if a certain RFD passed. My reasons for support also include a desire to see the whole NVS/BG7 issue reset to the way it was prior to its happening. This is in the interests of fairness. That's all I have to say. Thanks, good luck! fr33kman talk 19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While the sentiment is nice. The cat is out of the bag, we can't ignore what happened. BG broke a good number of standards admins are held to, to let him off the hook free is a free pass in the future to let every other rouge admin to do what they want because they know they won't be held accountable. -Djsasso (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully understand and respect your views D. fr33kman talk 20:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Still trust him. Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ BG7) 21:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per all of the above. --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 02:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think he has learned now what would be considered appropriate to do in the future. иιƒкч? 11:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BG7 still has my trust. Deserves the tools back. Pmlineditor 14:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Bluegoblin has been nothing but helpful, and he seems friendly and like he has clue. I, personally, trust him with the bit. hmwithτ 16:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support David0811 (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose[change source]

  1. Oppose I was against BG getting the tools the first time because of his unstable attitude and his tendency to lean towards WP:OWNership issues and possibility of wheel warring. I have found his issues with ownership have not gotten better but gotten worse over the time since he gained the mop the first time. He is completely unwilling to discuss issues he has and tends to draw a line in discussion. He said he would work on this when we gave him the mop the first time however, I don't think its gotten any better as can be evidenced of the situation that erupted the other day which could have easily been diffused if he would have stopped for a moment and talk without sarcasm and attacking language. Communication skills are the most important skill an admin should have and unfortunately I find BG to be completely lacking in this area. Definitely needs some time as a regular editor to mature and to work on improving those skills which admins require such as team work and tact. Posting a RfDeA which was clearly done out of anger and retaliation has all but strengthened my belief that he does not have maturity for such a position. If he would have just walked away from the situation I would have been impressed enough to possibly overlook some of the other issues. I am more than willing to reconsider in the future, but the actions of BG over the last little while have all but summed up my perfect example of what an admin should not be. -Djsasso (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have to say this lovely bit of assuming bad faith sums up my feelings beautifully. Also goes a long way towards prooving my point about drawing a line in the sand. -Djsasso (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I'm very sorry, but I don't really trust you with the mop anymore. Djsasso brought up some concerns about ownership; I also don't really think you've shown maturity in some of your actions with the mop; opening up an RfDA against NVS was not (IMHO) a good faith action; you reverted an admin's good faith close when you had an extremely clear COI. Lastly, I (frankly) think you're a bit of a loose cannon. I would support in several months, but now, I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose. Sorry. Shappy talk 18:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sorry, but not right now. You've made far too many odd moves lately, the RfDA being one. I was wary of you becoming one originally because I thought there were issues. Unfortunately I was right. Majorly talk 18:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Well, I can’t trust Bluegoblin7 at this moment. He has done a lot of good work with the admin tools, but also a very big mistake. The recent events with the flood flag debacle is still in my mind. The mentioned problems by Djsasso are also true. Bluegoblin7, you have a lack of communication skills. Some users told you, that you should not delete many pages in a very short time without the flag, even if this was on IRC. Your reaction wasn’t a good one. Yesterday, you have posted a request for de-adminship for NonvocalScream. I closed this (yes, I know, I am not a bureaucrat) per WP:SNOW, because the result was very clear. I know it was probably not right, but one of our ‘crats closed it later with the same reason. I think this RfdA was more like a revenge. I can’t agree with you judgement at the moment. And I also have to agree with Djsasso's comment about ownership. I have some worries, if you have the tools now. Well, You should work on yourself, to improve the risen concerns. Bluegoblin7, you are not right to get the tools back. (If the grammar is very bad, feel free to change it, but don't change the meaning) Barras (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I do not trust you with your tools. You flooded the RC after being advised by me and two other administrators to use the flood flag. You did this to try and make a point, which disrupted the project. You seem to have ownership problems. Also, your RFDeA seemed like it was a way to get even with NVS. I will hope that you improve on the issues mentioned in this RFA, and in a couple months maybe I will be able to support you. Exert 02:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose. I agree that all of us make mistakes, even I do, too, with occassional rollback and block errors. But the point of contention is that you actually made an RfdA against NVS for one single mistake. I'd like to see things cool down and when you're more consistent in terms of decisions on-Wiki, I will support your next request. Unfortunately, now is not the time. I am sorry. -- Tdxiang 03:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Regretful Oppose It is with regret that I feel that some of these concerns are valid. Most of you would know that my normal stance is to defend BG7 to the grave, however so much as occurred that one cannot ignore, reason away or self medicate with a few "she'll be right"s. The Rfda to me was impulsive, unwarranted, not only victimized the subject of it, but also made Bluegoblin7 appear to be vengeful. The second thing which really stuck out is the reversal of his own block, this on its own I was willing to ignore (until I noticed he did it twice which screams wheelwar) however more and more I am seeing that these instances of blatant impulsiveness (without prior thought of the social consequence) are occurring on a regular basis. Lastly I would like to refer to the inital request by Bluegoblin7 to remove his sysop bit and then requesting it back as if nothing happened, whilst I defended this action, when you combine it with the other 2 examples it paints the picture of a user who is unstable, impulsive and doesn't know when to step away from the keyboard for his own good. I will probably support at a later date, but not now Promethean (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As I explained at AN when you asked for your tools back via bureaucrat discretion, there are a number of factors here that cannot be overlooked. Refusing to use the flood flag to mass-delete hundreds/thousands of articles was frankly pointy. If we didn't want people to hide repetitive edits/logs, we would never have asked for the flood flag in the first place. You should have stopped deleting while commenting on the noticeboards if you did not want to hide those as well. Unblocking yourself twice confirmed my fears that you would be serving the project better as a non-admin for the foreseeable future. Basically per Djsasso above. Sorry. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose: This is all to quick. Give it at least a month for the last few weeks to sink in. I am not sure I can trust you with the bit at this moment.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I'm sorry to jump in from a few sporadic editing hiatuses, but I've been watching the site for a while after I returned from camp. I'm afraid that due to a few reasons, I am unable to support you at this time. It looks to me, and I have double checked it to your contributions, also with the other oppose reasons written here previously, that you have a problem with ownership. Additionally, I feel that due to some of the recent concerns that there is a possibility that you may wheel war. Communication skills, as Djsasso pointed out, is a very important and a vital quality for an administrator to have. One should not start an RFDA out of anger. I don't believe you have the maturity to fill an important position that cannot be abused, and I am unable to support you at this time. MJ94 (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose
    I can not support an administrator who disrupt the project to prove a point.
    You threaten to "l personally delete every single commune, river, asteroid and railway station." should a deletion discussion pass. This is not proper use of the tools.
    You also refused to stop your deletions after two administrators on your talk page and one elsewhere requested you stop. Instead, you initiated a rapid bot like deletion flushing the 50 change Recent Changes. Most editors only use the common 50 change RC. For which a block was applied in order to stop the flood and cause you to discuss this.
    You reverse administrative actions with no before or after note to the administrator.
    And then there is this pointy gem.
    After some time perhaps, but for now, I have concerns. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators need to communicate with a great deal of patience, and skill. This excerpt, "...Jesus, lighten up. It doesn't even effect you, Mr. God almighty admin sir. Exert, exactly. And in this case, it is needed. Is it me, or is it only admins (those that don't need the tool) that are opposing this?" is an example of what not to do.
    "...Stop worrying about how Wikipedia space pages of probably-deleted articles are archived and go build some articles. is another example of what an admin should not do. This is rude. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I cannot support someone who resigns in the fashion that BG7 did. Either way (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. You're a brilliant friend. However, an administrator needs to be sturdy, not fickle. —MC8 (b · t) 15:50, Monday July 20 2009 (UTC) (I ♥ Kennedy) 15:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

Let me comment on the RfdA quickly (i'll comment on the opposes individually later...), the RfdA was in no way meant as a grudge/get back etc etc. That's not the sort of person I am. I filed the RfdA because I felt that it was the best thing for the wiki. I never expected it to "pass", but knew that the whole Flood Flag mess needed sorting out and that was one of the ways that that needed to be done imo. Goblin 19:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

  1. It's all but clear this request for reconfirmation isn't going to succeed, so I won't pile on. You're generally a good editor, and we need more of those. Adminship is a powerful position though, and abuse of the bit can lead to extensive damage. Specifically, unblocking yourself (and simultaneously edit warring) is in fact blatant abuse of the tools, and while I've got no doubt your heart is in the right place here, I think you need to wait out a few weeks or months before once again being trusted with the tools. Please keep contributing as you did before you resigned, and in time I'll no doubt be able to support you. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to note that this seemed to be an attempt at revenge of sorts, even WP:POINTy. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would like to support as he's got a clue and hasn't deleted the main page. However, NVS's first two points are concerns I share regarding his recent administrative activity. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 13:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bluegoblin7_3&oldid=8869176"