Wikipedia talk:Requests for de-adminship/Bluegoblin7

Crat chat[change source]

As a matter of courtesy, I'd advocate postponing this, until he is able to comment. --Eptalon (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy over whatever he needs copied from his talk page, or set up a transclusion trick to do it. Jon@talk:~$ 18:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to shift the whole by two days. Events just happened, and emotions may soar. This is about serious business, where emotions should not affect our decision. --Eptalon (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sane, place it on hold for 48 hours and shift the close date. Jon@talk:~$ 19:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On hold for 48 hours and close date shifted. Jon@talk:~$ 19:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All !votes cleared per the fact that "emotions may soar" (see below). Please revert me if you disagree and bring it to the talk page of this RfDA. Chenzw Talk 15:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should run for at least 7 days from BG7's unblock when it happens in under a week. I think a candidate for desysopping deserves the full 7 days to makes responses. fr33k man 11:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. BG7 has been engaged on his talk page regarding this RFDA, and a crat has offered him the transclusion trick, should he choose to comment. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 12:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will make a difference either way, but it can't hurt to allow him the full 7 days. Really whats the rush here? He doesn't have the actual tools at the moment so he can't harm anything. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If his block expires before the completion of this RFDA, I have intention to resysop his account as 1) the emergency has passed 2) he has not been formally desysoped. Jon@talk:~$ 14:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be wrong, tools should be removed while there is an ongoing RFDA. The emergency hasn't passed until the community has agreed its passed or not passed (ie removed them permanently or not). Either way it was Fr33kman who removed them. I thought you had a personal policy of not undoing others admin edits? -DJSasso (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Object to reinstatement of rights. We are not sure if the community still trusts BG7, and the purpose of this RfdA is to find out the answer to that question. Chenzw Talk 14:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the temp desysop should remain in place. When a crat has to emergency desysop an admin they are exercising that power based on it being granted by the community, trust with the community is now suspect. So the detooled admin has to go through an RFDA. fr33k man 15:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then in deference to my fellow crats, I will leave as-is. DJSasso, 0RR is a goal, not a hard and fast rule for me, remember, I enjoy to privilege to revisit my personal policies at any time I wish. Jon@talk:~$ 15:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me, it might be time to promote Wikipedia:Emergency deflagging to official policy status (it is currently proposed, and has been for some time), and also consider renaming it to something like "Removal of rights in an emergency". Chenzw Talk 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading ofer the talk page, it does not appear to have wide consensus... but I'm not averse to advertising it on simple talk and revisiting the proposal. I have some more points I would like to discuss on that talk page if permissible. Jon@talk:~$ 15:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you can change your own personal policies. I was just asking, because you made quite the big deal about it recently. :) -DJSasso (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended[change source]

As I indicated above, it is only fair to allow BG7 7 full days to respond to this RFDA. As an uninvolved bureaucrat I have extended it for a further 6 days since he was unblocked yesterday. fr33k man 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved, Fr33k...you changed his block settings. BTW, while we're on the subject of blocks, you need to sync his doppelgangers, bots, and alt accts. with his primary acct. block Purple backpack89 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, he hasn't commented in thie RfdA as such he is uninvolved. The block is a seperate matter from the removal of admin rights. And either way...he is no longer blocked on his main account so there is no point adjusting those ones now. -DJSasso (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Purple backpack89 18:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are probably going to have to determine if we trust him to have bot flags after he threatened to go rogue. A bot flag is dangerous in the hands of someone who wants to go rogue. A well coded bot can damage hundreds of articles a minute. -DJSasso (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with this. I left BG7 a note on his talk page, asking if he'd like to comment. He has not made any indication of wanting to be involved in his RfdA. He could have been unblocked and restricted to only editing this discussion, if he wanted to, but, again, he made no indication of wanting to defend himself. There's no point dragging this out. EhJJ^TALK 22:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second EhJJ above, let this end. Had BG7 wished to comment, we would have made it available. Jon@talk:~$ 23:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I third, although it is probably not my place to say (as I'm not a 'crat). Griffinofwales (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fr33k, given the above from myself and Ehjj, would you consider canceling your extension? Regards, Jon@talk:~$ 07:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not sure I care either way (not sure if extending it at this point would hurt the project though not sure it would help either). I would prefer if we could GET a "not interested" statement from BG but not sure that is actually going to happen. James (T C) 07:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with prolonging this RfdeA. Bluegoblin7 has been offered to get the chance to comment on this request. I'm pretty that if he'd wished to comment here we would have found a way for (unblock for a few minutes, transclution form his talkpage or something) him to comment on this. I strongly disagree to keep this up for another week. I'm pretty such a prolonging just makes more drama than it can solve. I also doubt that people who already voted will change their mind and the result will be an other. All our requests (RfA, RfCU, RfOS) run for one week, why should a RfdeA make an exemption then? He had the chance to comment on it, he has been offered this chances. I think we've done all and everything that can be done here. I also want you (Fr33kman) to reconsider this extension and to cancel it. Barras (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only could he comment on his own user talk, he could also do so via email, either through the wiki or to Simple-admins-l. I would say that the window for comment has passed, and that this would probably distract others if we leave this open any longer. Chenzw Talk 13:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a crat, but I agree with Chenzw and Barras. Purple backpack89 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fine, done fr33k man 00:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]