Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bluegoblin7 2

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, or request for checkusership. Please do not modify it.

Bluegoblin7

[change source]
Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs)
  • End date: 10 April 2009 22:11 (UTC)
  • Ended: 10 April 2009 23:07 (UTC)

Hello all, I want to present to you Bluegoblin7 for adminship. He made his first edit to simple on October 12, last year. He made over 5,400 edits since last October. BG7 has around 500 deleted pages, because of the qd-tags. He has made lots of VIP reports of vandals, which he could block himself if he had the tools. He is also the writer of the very good article Crich Tramway Village. He was also involved in DYK. Bluegoblin7 is one of the most active and kindest users of this wiki. I trust him fully. I think he can use the rights to fight more effectively against vandalism. Best regards, Barras (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom from Yotcmdr: I'm very happy to co-nominate Bluegoblin7 for adminship. As time past, I got to know him much better, and now consider him a great friend. But most importantly, he is a great editor. Always, ready to try out new things, getting involved in discussions, article creating, vandal fighting... He has made so many QD's (I know this from the time I had access to his logs) and also VIP reports, that him having the tools can only be a good thing for Simple English Wikipedia. Hopefully, any mistakes he made in the past, are now forgotten and will not get in the way of this RFA. Thank you for letting me co-nominate you, I feel very honoured. Best of luck, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom from Fr33kman: Not only does BG7 understand WMF and seWP policy and guideline, but he also understands the MediaWiki interface very well (much better than me in fact). I think that he would be a real net gain to the admin pool. He reverts vandalism every time he sees it, and hasn't abused rollback to my knowledge. BG7 reports vandals when he needs to, he participates in community discussions, runs very valuable bots (that do very valuable work and also participate in IRC). I can personally see know reason whatsoever for the community to oppose this RFA and frankly I wonder why he isn't already an admin on seWP. He's one of those people that just seem a natural to me. fr33kman talk 05:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I humbly accept your nomination, thanks a lot! If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask away and I will answer. Regards, BGTHAT'S NUMBERWANG! 20:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from EhJJ

[change source]

These seem to have gone out of vogue, but I do have a question for you. That is, if you are to become an Admin, what administrative tools do you plan on using most? (i.e. block vandals, delete articles, etc.) I'm just curious if there's something you have an interest in (RfDs, NPP, RC, RfRB) or if you just want to mop the mess. EhJJTALK 02:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question EhJJ. The short answer would be simply mopping up the mess. I patrol the live RC feed all the time I am online, reverting vandals, marking qds etc often within the same minute that they are made. I often find that qds and blocks can go for hours without being dealt with, and so would also be making those and watching VIP for anything that is flagged up. The same would go with page protection if a page was constantly recieving vandalism from multiple IPs. I do often participate in RfD and would close them as delete, keep etc if I had the tools. My outcomes would however not just be based upon the number of !votes but also the reasons given across by those participating in the RfD. I would also participate in RfRB but initially I would just give input and what I would do, rather than actually granting the flags. I feel following the recent discussion that was had at an RfRB it would be inappropriate and unproffessional to grant RfRBs straight away, as that is what many of my opposers see to be an issue. Thanks for your time. Regards, Goblin 10:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good reply. Thanks! EhJJTALK 13:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Support - as nom. Barras (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - I'm not sure if my vote will count, but i have seen the edits that bluegoblin7 has made, and i see no problems with abuse of tools, good luck with your RFA and hope it is successful. Regards Arctic Fox 20:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Note: very few edits from this account. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 08:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support seems ok to me -- Mercy (☎|✍) 20:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support - Per my co-nom. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support – I trust him not to abuse the tools, and he is an excellent user. :) TheAE talk 20:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak support Hello there.  :-) First, I would like to commend you on the work you've done on Crich Tramway Village. Excellent job! Top notch! You're a better article writer than you were last time you ran. I think there haven't been occurrences of drama like those brought up last time. However, it has been less than 3 months since your last RFA, hence the weak.  :-| I gotta hand it to you, you show a large amount of dedication to this project. You've stuck with us through the "Banned User Days" and the "VGA Icon Days", while I've been too chicken.  :-P Cheers, Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 21:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support - Excellent user, won't abuse the tools, I trust him greatly. Kennedy (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Good user. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) (review) 22:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support - Great user who won't abuse the tools. Good luck! --Fairfield Deleted? 23:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. He's dedicated. -- Mentifisto 04:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Does good work, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support Heck yeah! Knows policy, knows how to add to mainspace (something we need in admins as well as editors) and know a heck of a lot about MediaWiki namespace and the software generally. This is a no-brainer for me. fr33kman talk 04:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Knows policies very well, that I don't think he'll abuse the tools. Best, Versus22 talk 06:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support Come on please, you should be admin already ;) - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 07:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strongly support - Of course!--  † CM16  18:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strongly support Add me to the list of supporters. Minorly (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Only a few edits. --Barras (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How many do I need to be able to vote??? Minorly (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Criteria for administratorship#Who can vote. EhJJTALK 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think have more than very few (here's another one) Minorly (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When the RfA started, you have only 17 edits. 3 User talk edits, 13 mainspace edits and one Wikipedia namespace edit. This are only a few edits. (It's my opinion) it is only a note. The closing 'crat has to decide,. Barras (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strongly support I have seen BG7 across multiple wikis over the past few years and he has always worked hard in improving articles and maintaining a good community. He has always shown initiative and enthusiasm. Having been an admin myself in the past on other wikis including en, I believe BG7 has the right qualities to be an admin. Tbo 157 (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Only a few edits --Barras (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Should do a good job. --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Enough experience here to know how to use the tools. EhJJTALK 13:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Definitely has the experience needed now. Will make a great addition to the team :D. Cheers, Razorflame 06:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yeah, sure. And for god sake, must we use Support everywhere? *rolls eyes* SteveTalk 21:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Steve, we don't. Bureaucrats reading all this stuff are actually mandated to read and understand the consensus. The consensus is formed from reading opinion, not counting green crosses and then subtracting red crosses. Funny thing is, on en.wiki, people try to avoid saying "vote" by saying "!vote". Here, it really is an out-and-out vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I hate that we have a provision in our criteria that says 65% and 75%....it turns this truely into a vote. -Djsasso (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the format of the RfA page (i.e. support, oppose) means that there is a tendency for people to vote rather than carry out a discussion to determine consensus. Generally, RfA outcomes seem to be based on the percentage of supports out of users eligible to participate in RfA. Tbo 157 (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Snow funn at tall (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note:Only 22 edits before the RfA started. (therefrom 6 on TRM's RfB/C). Barras (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Net positive to the project. Chenzw  Talk  11:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --vector ^_^ (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. Oppose - Probably won't mean much since there is already an avalanche of support. But the attitude shown in the link below by Majorly is definately not what I expect from an administrator and happened only just a day ago. Wheel warring is something an admin should not do, and when two admins already basically said no, you don't try to find a 3rd admin to undo the other two. Not sure this candidate understands working as a team or how bad wheel warring is. -Djsasso (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Djsasso, thanks for your comments, however I fail to see how I have shown any possibility of wheel warring. I completely understand policies of SEWP and also that wheel warring is wrong and completely inappropriate for any administrator to do. That said, I don't think that several of our current administrators and bureaucrats are setting a good example over recent events. The G12 stuff between Synergy and TRM, and also the incident with Vector? If people are going to be "worried" about wheel-warring as much as my opposers seem to be, I do believe that further "punishments" should be sought and given to administrators and 'crats that are wheel-warring, simply to not give across a split message to our community, which is what I see here. Also, you raise an objection that I have an "attitude...[that]...is definately not what I expect from an administrator". I also disagree with this statement as I believe that several other administrators also have such attitutudes (naming names would however be rude and unproffesional) but (and this isn't directed at you, more the community in general) I think that such people, especially those that are established at en, are just brushed passed because of their "deity"-ness. I know I keep saying it, but we are not en and people shouldn't be immune from being civil etc etc here because of it. I do see a "rift" opening between the en admins/users and non-en users, and I think this needs to stop. Many RfAs here of en users are testimony to this - just look at the en users who "fly-by" and support in certain RfAs, again not naming names. I also dispute your comment that I cannot understand working in a team - Crich Tramway Village is evidence completely to the contrary, as are many of the recent discussions that I have been involved with on ST about improving processes such as (V)GA. CTV would not be a VGA if it hadn't been the help of multiple editors, many of whom were very critical about the article, and I took their comments on board and between us we made it a very good article. Also please note that I have also never referred to this as "my" VGA because it isn't. It is the community's. In a community such as this teamwork is possibly the most important thing as we are so small. Every editor must work with every other editor and I have tried to do this as much as possible. Anyway, thanks again for your opinions and I hope to hear from you regarding my response. Regards BGTHAT'S NUMBERWANG! 21:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Its the attitude that comes across in most of your reply actually that is my concern. You can do no wrong, as Either way mentioins below you are very quick to draw a line and to make decisions. It's not the wheel warring as much as the hostile attacks you showed in your reponses on that page, instead of just accepting the decision or politely disagreeing, you attacked the people involved. Other admin may have that attitude as well, but one wrong attitude isn't an excuse for another, those admin are not up for "election" right now so can't exactly do anything about that, but I can about you. When it comes to the en/simple thing you keep ranting about, I don't know where you get the idea that en editors are excused for being uncivil, they get in just as much crap as others. What you and many others who keep crying about being seperate (which we aren't) fail to grasp is that editing on en (as opposed to not editing anywhere) gives a history to the editor that can be traced for issues or for experience. So are people with history likely to be moved forward to say rollbacker quicker? Yes and No, their history on en if there is one can go either way. If anything peoples history on en has hurt them more than helped them here so I don't know why you think there is a deity-ness surrounding en editors. Team work on building an article is entirely different than accepting concensus and moving on, which you have often had trouble doing. You get to a boiling point far to fast sometimes to make me comfortable with you having the power to block people. -Djsasso (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Djsasso's comment (and Majorly's link) as well as past interactions with BG7. He is too quick to shut down discussions by "drawing a line" rather than discussing things maturely. I also don't appreciate him telling users that we hate them. When I brought that up to him on IRC, he said he couldn't be arsed with it and consistently drew lines to end the conversation. The whole DYK/ownership concern is still a little too present in my mind for support this too. Either way (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Either way's link. I was in that IRC conversation and was wasn't very pleased by it. You don't tell people that you hate them. When, EW confronted you about it, you didn't apologize, you drew "lines" to end a conversation. That's not civil, because from I had read in the nutshell, you don't ignore other another constructive editor's comments. I'm sorry, BG7. SimonKSK 16:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per the link I gave below, and no response to it, despite editing today. There are just too many issues here. Majorly talk 19:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Heavy Editing"? 7 edits? Majorly, one of those edits was by my mobile phone this morning, and since I have been online tonight I have been writing my response. Please be patient! I've had a pretty stressful day IRL and wanted to just cool off with a bit of editing before saving my responses also. Cheers, BGTHAT'S NUMBERWANG! 19:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll note I removed the word "heavy", still, too much risk. You're welcome. Majorly talk 19:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask what you mean by too much risk? Kindly, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Too much risk of wheelwarring etc. Nicely, Majorly talk 20:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the prompt answer. Thankfully, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]

Best of luck to you bluegoblin7, i know that you have a nominator and co-nominator, but i would have ;) given the chance, so i will leave a comment instead, as i keep expressing good luck and hope to see you succeed, you deserve it. Best regards Arctic Fox 20:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still believe that that user should be given rollback, however if I had the admin tools I would not have granted the user rollback if the other two admins had made the same comments that they did. I would still have accepted the decision, albeit after making the same points that I did, and would not have undone the decision or gone against it. I would have suggested to NotGiven that he do some more vandal reversion, qd tagging and build up his mainspace edits before re-requesting, and explain that this was why the request was deleted. If he then re-requested, or there was a marked improvement, I would alert the admins that opposed to this fact and ask them if they believed that NotGiven could now be given the rollback flag. Under no circumstances would I undo or over-rule any other admin action without prior and/or further discussion. Regards, BGTHAT'S NUMBERWANG! 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm confident that you'd make a reasonable administrator, could you please tone down the sig a bit? This isn't a big deal, but it gives a slight impression of immaturity. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - changed back to my old Goblin one. I agree the sig was probably a little bit immature in hindsight - it just didn't occur to me when I created it! Apologies, and thanks for your comment. Goblin 17:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[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.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bluegoblin7_2&oldid=8870639"