Wikipedia:Requests for deadminship/Bluegoblin7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

Closed as demoted fr33kman 00:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Bluegoblin7[change source]

Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs)
RfdA of Bluegoblin7
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted blocks · protects · deletes · moves · rights
Last comment by: Auntof6Bot.

End date: 16:14, 1 August 2010


BG7 has been desysopped for Wheel warring as an emergency measure. I'm asking to community to remove his rights permanent. Also blocking a user where he was involved in an editorial dispute. Reference this block log where BG7 re applied a block in contravention of our policy against administrative wheel warring. I've also included some background here on this permalink of BG7's talk page. We don't do this here. Jon@talk:~$ 18:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


Support Deadminship[change source]

  1. Support per nom, essentially. Although it looks like PB had something to do with it, BG7 took the bait. I've taken some time to look at the situation, as I am not very active and not familiar with the happenings here. If this is anything like en.wikipedia, then I support removing the rights permanently. Incivility and wheel-warring is not acceptable for an admin. In BG7's own words, "it's twats like him that give us the bad name". Wheel warring does the same. Sorry, Airplaneman 16:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support due to edits such as this and this. I believe that administrators should hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior than may technically be permissible (and I obviously include myself in that) because they are often looked to by new users, and the names that he called another user were strong enough to warrant blocking. Thus, I support de-adminship. Kansan (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support I've been pretty vocal on my feelings in the past about his past behaviour. No need for me to pile on here. If he wants a further explanation I will give it to him. But no need to make this situation any worse than it already is so I will leave it at that. -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  4. Per everyone above; no need to reenumerate their points again. -- Lauryn Ashby (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  5. Yes. Clearly cannot be trusted. See also my rationale at his RfB just a few weeks ago. Either way (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  6. Per Kansan, per his history, and per NVS. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  7. Regretfully. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable in an administrator. sonia♫♪ 06:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  8. Sadly, I have to agree. He should have followed his own advice and taken a break, but he decided to take too far a step. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  9. per Sonia. Ι-ση // ταlκ ραgeψ 12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  10. Well, I wouldn't pile on, but no one has mentioned strongly that he blocked in a case where he was already involved. That's the clincher to me, on top of the incivility, wheel-warring,etc. I do hope he will return to editing productively, but he can do that without the tools and hopefully cause less damage. PrincessofLlyr talk 16:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    That was used as the rationale for the block logs. It's good that you mention that, though. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  11. Support πr2 (talk • changes) 19:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  12. He got a bit too much heated, and sadly, he lost it. Bluegoblin is a good editor, and I've known him for some time, but this is just too much. SimonKSK 19:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  13. BG7 knew this would happen and didn't care[1]. By blocking BPB, he essentially gave up his edit rights for a week and his admin rights indef. He may as well have just asked a crat to deflag him, and saved us all this trouble. If BG7 doesn't care about having the tools and will abuse them as he feels inclined to do, then he simply cannot have them. I am more than willing to forgive a mistake, even something major, if the person learns from it and says they will not do it again. That is not this case. EhJJTALK 21:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  14. Very sadly support. BG7 is a good editor, but in light of such an unfortunate incident, I do believe that he needs to keep his emotions and temper in check before he can be trusted with the tools again. I will most certainly support reinstatement of his right if his behaviour improves.-- Tdxiang 08:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  15. I like BG7 however I supported his last RFA under the promise that something like this would not happen again. Yet here we are. I cannot see BG7 having these tools any longer.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Deadminship[change source]

Weakly - I came here after all this began, so I'll admit I don't know the full story, but I've had a look through the diffs given and I'm not entirely sure a -sysop is worth it. I'd be in favour of one more chance or at least something short of unticking that box if we could work something out. Its obvious my thoughts aren't shared by many (vocal) but its my 2 Kuruş. Hoots (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Indented !vote. User is a blocked sockpuppet. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 Bureaucrat note: Editor has 31 edits. Jon@talk:~$ 19:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
And? The editor stated himself that he has a good understanding of WP. SimonKSK 19:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes I thought it was only an issue if my account was not created prior to the RfX being created? Hoots (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It is. Some people like making this note, but really your comment is as valid as any other. -DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. Overcome by feelings, emotions; totally human. Sometimes goes too far, but still has my trust. Yottie =talk= 15:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    If this was the first time, I think I would say the same thing. I don't mean to badger, but I think this happens way to often with BG7.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
    Feel free to think what you want ;) Yottie =talk= 23:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments[change source]

  • I don't think - I probably won't vote here, but frankly I am at loss for what to do. I never imagined that a user requesting for 'crat would suddenly change to a user nommed for deadminship! Bluegoblin is a potential, a very precious user to wikipedia. His pride and dignity takes the better of his goodness, but don't we all know how good he is to the community sometimes? I think we should think very carefully before we vote in here. One wrong action or word, and we might lose a very important editor. Purplebackpack is blocked, and therefore I doubt there would be any more conflicts between the two, so it would not be wholely necessary to desysop him, would it? I'm just hesitating.... Belle tête-à-tête 03:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes... it is wholly necessary to desysop him. Jon@talk:~$ 05:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems quite clear that this request for deadminship will succeed, so I won't pile on. You're a quality editor, and one that really changed this wiki in the past (very often for the better). But Bluegoblin, adminship is a powerful position – not only in the technical sense but in the sense of being looked up to as an example – and your blocking Purplebackpack when you had been asked by two bureaucrats to refrain was in fact abuse of the tools. I was not pleased with his comments, but it was not for you to block him at that time—and it was even less appropriate for you to call him offensive names. It's all very sad. I'm sorry. —Clementina talk 09:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • As per Clementina and Belinda above, I have always thought BG7 is a good editor. I'm sorry about you. I'm not going to vote here, but I don't blame him. Simple has lost its charm. Diego Grez let's talk 23:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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.