Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bluegoblin7 6

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

• It is quite clear that we have strong opinions on both the support and opposition side. It is also obvious that everyone recognizes the great work (and the great strides) that BG has made. That said after reading through the comments both here and the crat chat I've decided that there is no consensus for promotion. I want to try and explain my reasoning as well as possible and have put my thoughts below. If you have any questions please feel free to let me know.
  • From the start the Percentage was well within the 'Crat's call' range of 60-70% at 65%. This includes all of the !votes below.
  • One of the supporters is a banned user and strictly speaking should have his vote striked. That said their voice was relatively reasonable and added to the discussion. Eliminating that completely from the discussion is hard to reasonably do both for BGs sake and just recognizing reality (they affected things regardless and you can not erase that)
  • BarkingFish's comment was done after the official close of the voting period but before the protection and crat hold. I have always held that a vote is still open at that point for better or worse.
  • Griffin's comment was essentially an opposition put in the neutral category (with the reason that it wasn't in the opposition category being that he opposed to much). While his decision not to oppose is reasonable and should be respected it does lend voice to the opposition regardless if not a 'full count'.
  • Good and reasonable arguments were given by both sides with both acknowledging the other's logic. This is a great example of how consensus can work nicely where people do not have to complain and fight about every little piece.
  • Looking at history we've closed RfA's both ways around this % but given the arguments I think that we can not discount the opposition (in general even the supporters do not) and while we have a majority we do not have enough support to call a consensus.

• On a personal note I want to say how proud I am of the work that BG has done and the growth that he has gone through recently. I do hope you stay and even perhaps think about adminship at some point in the future (I probably would have even supported after looking into it more but it may not have changed the end result) . James (T C) 04:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Bluegoblin7

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

End date: 13:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I am inviting the community to grant the sysop flag to BG7. Gobby has been a sysop here more than once before and knows the job very well and has also resigned and been desysoped before. He is a personal friend and I believe in him. I don't say that lightly as I was the one to desysop him via the emergency method and block him to stop him from acting the fool. I've seen him chill out a lot since that time and despite the fact of his not having the flag he's come back and been an active and good editor. I feel he's learned a lot and should now be regranted the mop. BG7 can answer any questions people have; the newer members may want to know more, the olders editors know the score. Cheers! fr33kman 00:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Fr33kman for the nomination and for believing in me and that I am able to re-gain the sysop flag. I'm the first to admit that I've made mistakes in the past when I've let off-wiki emotions get the better of me, however I have learnt from these and can assure everyone of there not being a repeat! I'm also going to - voluntarily - not participate in any controversial actions or discussions for a while and will stick solely to non-controversial blocks/deletions/protects etc - I know that some people have raised concerns about this so I just want to address them. As Fr33kman says, if you do want to know more then please ask and I will gladly answer your questions freely and openly etc. Finally, please do take a look at my previous admin experience - apart from the issues which saw my desysopping I (believe) that I have had a pretty good record - though that is, of course, for the community to judge. Finally, just a note that if this doesn't pass it's highly unlikely that I will bother running again - the tools aren't a big deal and just help to speed things up more than anything else. I don't see them as a goal etc so as I say, if it doesn't pass then no biggy really. Thanks to Fr33kman again for the nomination - I'm honoured - and over to you guys, the community! :-) Goblin 13:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

Candidate's acceptance:

Support

1. as nom fr33kman 00:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Support - For obvious reasons. Ydennek ^(talk) 13:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Support Because. --@jersey⁺ 19:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
4. Support Anyone commits errors, and deserves a second opportunity. Diffs are from 2 years ago. If he was an admin, it means he already has experience with the buttons. If he behaves bad, you can always desysop him.--Jcaraballo (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Support - a difficult one in view of his past history, but if BG7 has changed then he will be a valuable asset to the admin team. If not, we simply take the mop back. --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

   In reply to Peter and Jcaraballo... tired of desysopping. The propensity is there, evidenced... going through another desysopping procedure is a large timesink and distraction. This project, or its community can not afford the time it would take. For the record, the request to remove his administrative rights was less than one year ago. I will tell you, as the requester, it was heartbreaking for me to block another elected functionary, and even more emotional for me when I requested the removal of rights. I don't want to do it again. The candidate does not have my trust, maybe later, but not now. Jon@talk:~$ 00:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

   "Less than one year ago"?! I almost spat out my coffee. Yes, its slightly less than one year. The desysop was closed (5 minutes into) 28 July 2010. So in fact you could say that its been almost a year since he was desysoped. I think thats enough time for some hard work to make up for mistakes. Ydennek ^(talk) 08:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

   I guess that depends on your opinion. Personally I don't think anyone changes much in a year. If it were a few years I would agree people change. But they only barely change in a year. So its not as long a time as you make it sound. I would also note that after his desysop he left the wiki completely and only returned to editing in November which is only 7 months ago. -DJSasso (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, depends on your opinion. You have stated yours already, thank you. I think we're all quite clear on that. With respect, I directed my comment towards NVS. Ydennek ^(talk) 11:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

   And you know this is a discussion right? You don't own it right? -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

   I realise that. However my initial question was directed at NVS. We've heard your opinion already so I asked that you would allow NVS to reply, which he is more than capable of doing. I don't know where you get the opinion that I think I own this discussion... Ydennek ^(talk) 11:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

   The fact that you imply I can't comment because the tread of discussion was started by NVS. Anyone can comment in anything on here. Your facts were inaccurate, I was clarifying. It wasn't my opinion that was the point of the comment. I was stating that your facts were wrong. He hasn't had a year to proove himself better like you indicated. He had 7 months. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

   Your comment has the words "Personally I don't think...". Thats your opinion. I do not imply you cannot comment. Just that I would like to hear NVS' opinion. We are clogging up this RfA with our debating, if you want to talk more I have a page for that? Regards, Ydennek ^(talk) 11:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

   ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
   

   Oh my. Ydennek, for the same arguement you used on Djsasso, I could use on you. Look at the start of my thread "In reply to...". Do not stifle debate, it is not clogging the RFA. Is is a discussion and anyone may respond. I did see the comment, and decided that it did not need a response. There is nothing to gain my my reiteration of points. I did earnestly look for your "initial question" that you directed towards me, however, I do not see a question. If you have a question, state it in interrogative format, and I will do my best to answer or clarify as you desire. Regards, Jon@talk:~$ 04:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

   Sigh. I didn't actually want to get into an argument with you (or DJSasso for that matter). My point was, and I'll put this in a direct question as you ask; don't you think that one year (or even 7 months going by DJSasso's count) is enough time for someone to change and re-evaluate how they act? Ydennek ^(talk) 11:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

   I would like to see more time pass, ultimately however, it is the will of the community. My opposition stands. Regards, Jon@talk:~$ 01:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

6. - Support Yottie ^=talk= 08:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
7. SupportVibhijain (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

    Clerk note: This editor has only made 4 other edits since account created March 2011. Ydennek ^(talk) 11:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

   Please also note that I am also a sysop on 2 projects. Vibhijain (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

8. Still trust BG to do well as an admin. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Support Chenzw  Talk  12:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
10. Support BG often "tells it how it is" and that's just fine. SEWP isn't about "being nice" to people, it's about improving the content of the encyclopedia and making sure it doesn't get closed down. He's one of the few people here who are active around the PGA/PVGA area which, after all, is where we all should be focused, and has written featured material himself. He knows his way around this Wikipedia. I often pop by here and realise that we seem to have a window of opportunity for vandals when most of our US or Far East admins are asleep. This is a time when BG can help out too. He'll make a good sysop. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
11. Support TBloemink (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
12. Support per Peterdownunder. Grunny (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
13. Respect both sides of the debate, but I find myself agreeing here with TRM. I find it highly unlikely BG will put us in the situation of considering a desysop again. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Consistently problematic history.

   Candidate threatens 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.

   Candidate also refused to stop your deletions after two administrators on your talk page and one elsewhere requested you stop. Instead, candidate 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.
   

   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.

   Reasons also enumerated in...

   Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bluegoblin7 5

   Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bluegoblin7 4

   Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bluegoblin7 3

   Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 15:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

   First diff from June 2009. Second, July 2009. Third July 2010, although I'm not sure what the problem is with deleting those pages. I assume you don't actually have an objection to them being deleted, just how they were? If so, a very minor problem. Fourth diff 2009. Fifth diff 2009. Sixth, 2009. Seventh, 2009. Eighth, 2009. I'd have thought someone who is a positive user would have been given a chance by now?Ydennek ^(talk) 16:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

   The date ranges you cite are correct... and I'm sure others will have more differentials. Now, given that I only cited a small subset, 2 years, and recent as a year ago, that is a consistent pattern. I am unwilling to subject this wiki to the time distraction this admin-hopeful's demonstrated pattern may bring in the future, by propensity. Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

   Well, the one last year I don't think is actually a problem. The only issues are two years ago and you have not provided any more recent diffs, therefore its impossible for you to say that its a consistent pattern if it ended two years ago (or even one year ago if we do include 'that' diff). Ydennek ^(talk) 16:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose User has been know for getting BITE-y and uncivil when stressed, also per Scream. Sorry, Gobby. chris†ianrocker90 17:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Sorry, I don't think this is the right time. I haven't seen any consistent demonstration of remorse from the previous (and rather serious) incidents that resulted in the original desysop. Your temper tends to be your downfall, and I'm concerned that when situations get tough, you won't react with a level head. Perhaps some time in the future, but far too early for me to tell, to be honest. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
4. Per the diffs NonvocalScream has provided. Albacore (talk · changes) 19:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
5. After much thought about it. I decided its just not worth the risk of having to demop an admin again. We shouldn't give out the mop in the first place if there is even remotely a chance it will have to be taken back. Still too much propensity here to hand it out like candy. BG has improved no doubt. Just not sure the possible gain is worth the possible problems at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Several others have expressed what I believe above me. I do not feel comfortable with BG7 being an admin on Simple Wikipedia. Either way (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Considering my main view of Bluegoblin7 has been at another project, I'm not sure it qualifies here - but I have seen him in a rather unfavourable light recently, as a very terse individual who cuts off communication when things do not go his way. Accordingly, I do not feel he would be suitable in the role of an administrator, now or in the future. BarkingFish (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm not going to vote, because I don't know what to think. BG7 is probably one of our most hardworking editors, and could use the tools to better help the wiki, as he has done in the past. However, times do arise where we are forced to deal with tough situations, and this is where I feel BG7 needs to better himself. I feel he acts with his raw emotion instead of his logic (Which he obviously has a lot of). I'm starting to think this is just part of his nature, something that is just him. I want to support because of the work ethic, and I want to oppose because of the past, but the two cancel each other out, and I'm left wondering which side to lean, and I can't decide. Sorry. Good luck BG7.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• "Your temper tends to be your downfall, and I'm concerned that when situations get tough, you won't react with a level head." Indeed, the majority of the time, you do a great job as an admin. However, it's the times when a level head is needed that count. However, due to the fact that I've opposed many times before, I'll put my comment in the neutral column. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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.