Project:Requests for adminship/Bluegoblin7 7

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

• Closed as unsuccessful. Chenzw  Talk  10:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bluegoblin7

Bluegoblin7 (talk • changes • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

End date: 23:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have had the oppertunity to speak with the candidate away from the wiki, one on one with regards to the issues that were preventing me from supporting his last RFA. I do not at this time believe that those same issues will reoccur. After sufficent time has passed, I believe the editor now has the maturity to look past disputes and do what is right and correct on this wiki. I trust that. In light of the candidates entire history, to include the improvement, and maturity: I ask the community to review this request. I also would like to thank the community for considering it. Jon@talk:~$ 17:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: In my previous (failed) RfA six months ago I closed by stating that I would not stand for adminship again if that was not to succeed. I stand by those words, and certainly didn't have any intention of running again until Jon's nomination appeared and caused me to even think about the mop. His approach and my response can be read here, and this certainly reflects current thinking after having had more time to think about it. A lot has changed in the eight months since I last ran - both on wiki and off - and I feel that the new year may be a good time to try it. I can keep doing what I do with or without the mop - so there's no big deal regardless of how this goes - and, again, I won't be actively seeking or thinking about adminship if this request fails, as it really doesn't mean all that much to me - it's a few extra buttons at the end of the day. Anyhoo - without further ado, I gratefully accept this nomination, and throw open the doors to the community for your appraisal. Many thanks to all, and kind regards, Goblin 23:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Orashmatash!

Support

1. Would do a better job than some of the other admins we have already, and I think him having the mop would, overall, be a positive. Yottie ^=talk= 10:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Strong Support - I believe that he is an asset to this wiki, knows all the rules, helps with anti-vandalism, takes part in discussions etc. Adminship is not a big deal, and as such we are not elevating BG7 to any 'promoted position'. I trust him to carry out the responsibilities of the job, deleting, blocking, protecting etc and that is all I need, or expect. Normandy 10:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

   Weak Support - The user has shown some his great actions. --Katarighe (Talk) 17:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

   "Why should we get him a mop now?" seems to imply you're opposing BG7. Katarighe, how about you go to your native language Wikipedia and do work there instead of making edits that don't make sense? (I am not trying to badger K into opposing; rather, I am pointing out that they are showing the same issues that led to their block on the English Wikipedia.) Hurricanefan25 (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

   One of the more offensive comments I have read in a while. We have many editors who don't speak English as a first language, and we should welcome them, not tell them to leave. There are a few ways to interpret his comment. Either he missed an "'nt" at the end of should, or he is asking a rhetorical question. Both of which make sense. Please assume good faith here, and don't scare off editors.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

   I've apologized for this situation what I have done. Thank you. --Katarighe (Talk) 21:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

   You don't need to strike your vote if you do not want to. It is entirely your decision and can reinstate your vote if you so wish. You are perfectly entitled to voice your opinion in whichever way it lies. Normandy 21:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

3. Suppport. Jon@talk:~$ 21:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluegoblin7 doesn't realize the importance of discussion and explanation in consensus-building processes. Someone makes a good faith proposal, and he opposes with no explanation. At an RfD, he votes delete with no explanation, and then changes to keep when the tide turns—again with no explanation. At other RfDs, he votes without explanations. He closes a PGA as "no consensus to promote" with no explanation, and when questioned about his close, he removes the entire discussion without another word.
   Also, he is quick to make bad faith assumptions.
   Finally, he doesn't practice what he preaches: "read comments surrounding [the issue] before just blindly assuming things"—I hardly see that from him, considering the above.
   All this amounts to a user whose actions are not conducive to constructive, good faith processes, and it would be a disservice to Wikipedia to allow him to be an administrator. Goodvac (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

   To be very honest, well done for going to find all those link, but to me they show very little. The opposes were done when it was clear it was an oppose. Oppose on an rfd will imply you agree with the nominator. The PGA was closed with the explanation 'no consensus', which is an explanation. I would disagree that the links you give are bad faith assumptions, they are sometimes pointing out the obvious (i.e. you can't get real consensus in a single day). In my opinion, BG7 is far more direct and serious about editing (maybe a little too much) but that directness is a quality needed when you are an admin. Anyway, have a good day :) Yottie ^=talk= 19:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

2. File:Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strongly oppose I do not trust the user. This user has shown over the years that he cannot always keep a cool and level head when stressed. This user has had the tools twice(?) and had them removed both times. I do not support this users re-election as, as I have said, he has shown in the past he cannot be trusted with them. Also per Goodvac. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 23:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

   Aren't you 'retired'? Or are you 'retired but will come back to vote on polls cause I feel strongly on them'? I am very confused regarding your position here... Normandy 10:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

   I will answer your questions on my talk, I will not interrupt this RfA for something unrelated. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 11:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

3. Serious concerns about BG's ability to handle stressful(?); the July 2010 incident is *very* concerning. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Still not positive he has the right attitude to be an admin. He has had some rather big blowouts with people over the last few months (such as ajona). Goodvac sums it up pretty good above. Not sure how I feel about his promising never to run again and then running at the first opportunity. Seems like he just said that last Rfa to change peoples minds and wasn't being sincere with the community. -DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Goovac says it better than I can. Bluegoblin7 mishandles people with the "powers" he already "has" (or assigns himself); I would not like to see the reactions with tools added into the fray. Only (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Being from the main Wikipedia, I probably am holding Bluegoblin7 to much higher standards than the rest of you, but I think I have to side with Goodvac on this. Admins are supposed to make good choices based on good thinking; the first two diffs alone (in Goodvac's comment) are sufficient for me to oppose.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose per my arguments at previous RfAs and others above me. I do not believe this user is suited for adminship. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
8. I'm sorry, but I can not support per Goodvac's links and the arguments given above. -Orashmatash (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
9. File:Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I cannot viably support the candidate at this time. I have seen how they react elsewhere to stress, and I don't feel they would cope well. They certainly haven't before. BarkingFish (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose - I don't know myself to support this candidate at this time and his concerns of ability. --Katarighe (Talk) 21:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose - I'm sorry but the attacks and your slogan "I don't care about WP:NPA" is not how an admin should be. These examples have made me come to a decision that Simple is not the place for me, I don't like being attacked, furthermore, not even one admin said anything. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Well, first I'd like to say that I do appreciate what he does on the positive side. But he is too often abrupt and makes decisions almost before there has been time to discuss the issue. Like several others, I think his that his (I paraphrase) "I know I'm rude, but I don't care" attitude is not acceptable in an admin. It is a bad model for our younger viewers, and tends to lead to needless conflict. That's the reason I vote Oppose. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Oppose - I'm sorry, but I don't trust you completely with admin rights. I agree with the arguments above, especially Goodvac's links. πr² 22:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Goodvac. I am not convinced that he can be trusted with the tools. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

1) I still find it odd that this page is protected and that IP or timedout users are not even allowed to comment on these issues (vote, no - but point things out? certainly. Our admins are bright enough to ignore silly spam here (and we have CU('s) enough to deal with evil issues) but thats a different issues.

This is a hard case to judge and hence I'm, for now, staying in the comments section. Do I trust BG to handle basic admin responsibilities? (deletes, move over redirects, vandal bitch slapping (blocks) etc... ) yeah. Do I trust him to do this under freak out situations when he is getting abused and to deal with it not just maturely but without saying every random evil thought that usually went through my head while having to do it? probably not. With basic admin duties, I have full faith he can do the job. Its the high stress, in your face, "you're such a joke no one in the real world thinks you are even close as serious as you seem to think that you are" mentality of dealing with issues that admins are needed to deal with at times that makes me wonder. I stepped down as admin/b'crat/CU years ago and still get spammed to death (on a throwaway account thankfully) for dealing with just one single long term vandal. I chuckle at him and move on without a second thought. let alone a vindictive thought. In this regard, I just can't feel certain that BG would not lash out in reply. Lets face it, you lash out at much more minor things. When faced with an attack, this isn't likely to change much and is not really in the best interest of the wiki. I trust you to be able to do the job, but not as much with the ability to keep control while doing it (too reminiscent of Netaholic - good at the duties, but took it all too personal when the job is anything but personal). --Creol(talk) 06:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to comment on your worry about protecting this page....are you seeing something I"m not? I don't see anything on the protection log or history of this page to suggest this is protected in any way. Only (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. ;) 122.106.87.42 (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you come here from the header in RC, the main Requests for permissions page is protected so its a bit tricky getting to any of the sub-pages to comment without edit links and it gives the appearance of the subpages being protected as well. I never saw the sub-page until logged in and assumed cascade from the main page. 70.184.171.16 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to unprotect the Rfp page...but it used to get heavily vandalized so I couldn't decide what was the lesser evil, leaving that page open to vandalism or having it harder for an IP to comment when an IP can't vote anyways. So I left it as is, but recommend anyone that wants that page unprotected to take it to the AN for discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2012 (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.