Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bluegoblin7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Bluegoblin7

[edit]

Final (6/13/10); Closed per candidate withdrawal at 08:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC).

Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs) - I am self-nominating myself now as I would (mainly) like to help out with DYK. I have been undergoing admin coaching, and if this RfA fails, I will continue and come back at another time. BG7 00:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw, as I feel I have a lot to work on, continuing would be pointless. BG7 08:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: To start off with it will be mainly DYK related, eventually branching out into CSDs, XfDs etc. I also will be availble to give rollback if needed/appropriate.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Probably setting up Wikipedia:WikiProject Derbyshire, as it has really boosted Derbyshire's articles. Also my edits to the National Tramway Museum and Tramcars of the National Tramway Museum - before I started, one didn't exist and the other was a stub!
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in several disputes regarding several things: all of which were stupid. I almost certainly acted badly, and in future I will remain calm and cool, walking away and taking a break if that's what's needed.

Optional questions from RyRy5

4. If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?
A:
5. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?
A:

Optional question from Bencherlite

6. Are you already a sysop, interwiki and bureaucrat at another wiki? If so, what have those roles there taught you, and how (if at all) would your experience there benefit you on Wikipedia?
A:
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship on Wikipedia, please answer the following questions:
  • 7. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • A:
  • A:
  • A:
  • 8. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A:
  • 9. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A:


General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bluegoblin7 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • I'd like to add that, at least for a while, most of my admin work will be in backlogged pages such as request moves, DYK updates etc! Thanks, BG7 01:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Weak support. If I was reviewing your contributions and I didn't know you, I'd probably be weak-opposing, to be honest; however, from all I've seen of you at the assorted transport infrastructure projects where we intersect, you seem to have a good balance of when to look for consensus, when to be bold and when to admit you're wrong. If you do pass, I very very very strongly urge you not to get involved in deletions, and especially not CSDs, until you've a lot more experience; your opinions on what is and isn't notable aren't as accurate as I think you think they are, and from a skim through your deleted contribs, you've virtually no successful speedy-tags. — iridescent 00:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support nothing wrong on the face with this user, and the fact that he plans to work in underadmined DYK? furthers my support. However, I would like it if you elaborate what incidents that you acted poorly in. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Most recently it was a stupid thing regarding me and User:Unisouth about the Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport newsletter. It is still on the project talk page. Prior to that, there was a run-in with User:Captain Scarlet, about various tram related things - mainly articles, banners, policies/guidlines etc to do with WP:TUK. I think there may be one or two more, but i can't remember. I'll have a think! BTW, most I admit I was probably wrong - I can just push my point to hard sometimes! BG7 00:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support based on what I've seen. Wizardman 00:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support due to no negative interactions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support No concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me
  6. Support they helped me while I was being accused of bad mouthing the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway, when I did nothing. Shanner191 (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note:The above editor has only four edits, including one to this RFA and one to the candidate's talk page.
    Good point. I'd like to discount his vote, if that's allowed? I know it's my RfA, but still, I think the users voting should be a bit more experienced etc, and with better reasons? Sorry Shanner. BG7 01:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No proof without a checkuser - and on an account with only 4 edits it hardly seems worth it - but this looks suspiciously like another Canterberry sock. — iridescent 01:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall we get a chack user? Something seems suspicious about Shanner191. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice to see so much WP:ABF here... FWIW if it's a Canterberry sock Checkuser generally doesn't catch them. — iridescent 01:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose. Sorry, too soon. You appear to be a great editor though. Not enough edits in general at this time, as well as to ANI/AN/wt:RfA etc. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, no worries. I'll go have a look at some stage tommorrow! BG7 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose. I have a few concerns. For one, if you're currently being admin coached, it would've been much better to wait a little longer and have your admin coach nominate you when he/she thought you were ready. Secondly, I don't think your mainspace work is enough yet. You do have just over 500 edits there, but over a third of them are on a single article. Not a terrible thing, just kind of strange. I also thought this edit was a bit much. Useight (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Points taken, but please read the summary with that edit! BG7 01:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, you did have a kind of disclaimer in the summary, but it was still a lot of tags when {{cleanup}} might have served the same purpose without making the article so difficult to read. You did the same thing here, as well, but not quite as excessive. Useight (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes i must agree. Sorry - I was on IE instead of Firefox, as I can't get on it at school, so I went a tad crazy. Normall I would just use Twinkle. I've cleaned them both up in the meantime!
    BG7 01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I don't find this edit very civil, albeit it was a few months ago. Useight (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Something suspicious is going on here. The 6th support !vote comes from an editor with only four edits (two are related to tram-related images, one on the candidate's talk page, and one on this RFA) and both the supporter and the candidate appear to share the same name (I can provide evidence of this if requested). Sorry to sound like I'm assuming bad faith, it just looks like a sticky situation. Useight (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The images uploaded by Shanner appear to have been taken with a different camera that those uploaded by BG7, for what that's worth. I agree this looks iffy - BG if (I emphasise the "if") you are up to something I very strongly advise you to come clean — the slap on the wrist you'll get if you own up will be a lot less of a nuisance than the hardblock you'll get if checkuser uncovers something it shouldn't. — iridescent 01:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how you know whether a picture is from a different camera or not, but they do have different resolutions. I'm not declaring Shanner a sockpuppet of BG7, I just thought I'd bring up the coincidence for further scrutiny if necessary. Useight (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Needs more experience, especially with preparing the next update for DYK. Keep preparing some DYK next updates over the several months to prove yourself like Gatoclass did and I'll feel different. (DYK... that some people find it distasteful to respond to every comment to you in an RFA, right?) Royalbroil 02:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose — Admin coachee, self-nom. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I'd probably had supported if you'd made some kind of mention about WP:TUK or your other projects, but you didn't. Iridescent said below that you practically run the place yourself, and it sounds a bit like you're going to abandon it.--Koji†Dude (C) 02:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Koji, it just seems abit odd to oppose based on what I can only interpret as your surmising. Perhaps he/she just forgot, or perhaps they really are taking a break from it? Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, first: It's not the sole reason for my oppose, but it's the main reason. The thing about his low edit count had already been brought up alot so I figured, why be redundant? I guess I should have mentioned it anyway, though. I just don't like sounding like a hipocryte. Second: I think I'd rather have him abandon it than forget about it, because a forgetful admin isn't good.--Koji†Dude (C) 02:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification. Excellent and distinctive point about the important line between being forgetful and simply walking away. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Not enough experience. Low number of edits and not to enough articles.Xp54321 (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Not enough experience all around, would have liked you to have waited for a nomination by your coach, and (for once in my life) per Kmweber. Tiptoety talk 03:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak oppose - Was going to support per WP:WTHN, but this and the 6th vote (the latter not so much, as you have been quite open to a checkuser, it seems) have me worried. asenine say what? 03:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, like others I'd like to see more editing experience under the belt, including having been a registered editor for at least a full year and a great deal more edits, particularly in the main space and in the areas he's expressed an interest in working in. It doesn't appear he has finished his admin coaching yet either, and jumped the gun on this self nomination. Issues with civility and editor disputes are too recent, to me, to show that he'll be able to deal with the contentions (and nastiness) admins often encounter. All in all, I just don't feel he's ready yet.Collectonian (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose looks like he has barely begun admin coaching and has decided not to wait. I fully support Admin Coaching when it is done right, but if you accept a coach, then there are certain expectations---for example, waiting for the coach to give you the green light to run. Looks as if BG was too impatient for that. Additionally, his edit count/history is very minimal and what he does have is captured in a single silo.Balloonman (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose- You haven't answered some key questions, and the current answers to the ones you have answered I feel leave something to be desired. I support admin coaching too, however he fact you decided not to wait, I feel is a poor decision, for that reason I'm opposing. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Give him a chance with the optional questions! His last edit was 6 hours ago at 01:42UTC (2.42am local time) saying that he was off to sleep; all the optional questions were added after that. BencherliteTalk 07:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will change to neutral awaiting answers. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak Oppose: Not ready yet. Very less experience. Only ONE DYK contribs as of now. You should initially help other DYK Admins by particpating in Template talk:Did you know , helping to verify source / Length , before putting them on Template:Did you know/Next update . Most of your DYK edits on Template:Did you know/Next update and Template talk:Did you know page is just a few days old , which makes me feel , you suddenly realised that DYK is a laddar to Adminship ? :D . I dont believe you are socking Shanner191 , But have you annoyed someone recently , who wants to create such a bad impression for your RFA ? BTW please dont nominate RFA with the expectation to fail. And You didnt even inform your Coach , that you have self nominated for RFA ? :| My personally suggestion is that your should try for RFA after some time. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 07:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose with moral support - Not enough experience. Keep up the good work and try again in a few months. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 08:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral. I think you should have waited for your coaches to nominate you first. Right now you are not ready. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks anyway! BG7 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, possibly going towards Oppose Sorry, but I don't think your ready for adminship just yet. You've been here for a good amount of time but you need some more quality edits. I see over 500 mainspace edits, most of which is on one article but I don't think your very experienced yet in project space, mainspace, and in different areas of wikipedia. Continue your admin coaching and maybe until someone nominates you. But your doing good so far. Cheers. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I don't generally question opposes - but where on earth do you get "not experienced in project space" from? BG runs WP:TUK virtually single-handed. — iridescent 00:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant in the article/mainspace. He has only 500+ mianspace edits. Excuse me for the misunderstanding. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    May I mention I also do WP:Derbys aswell? BG7 00:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think perhaps RyRy was referring to admin-related areas in the project space? Sorry if I'm off base here. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - You seem to be a good editor, but I'm afraid there are experience issues/concerns. Also, I'm a little perplexed as to why you are self-nominating while undergoing admin coaching. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I appreciate your help on DYK today, but I never saw you before. You seem you may make a good admin, but I just don't know enough about you yet.--Bedford 00:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - Sorry, not enough information to base a "support" vote, keep working towards that goal however, and coaching is a great place to start - they should nominate you when they think you're ready. Also half of your mainspace edits seem to center around a few article. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral You're on the right track but I can't really vote support just yet. I have seen some good editorial work from you but not enough administrative type work. Keep up the good work and kudos for promising us you'll come back if you fail. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral -- Not yet ready, come back in a few months. --SharkfaceT/C 03:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral one should not self-nominate with an expectation of failure. xenocidic (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral, leaning oppose: Still have some serious concerns here, but I'll wait for a response for the remaining questions. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. I probably would support if you had a more positive outlook on this RfA. Also, I don't think you're that experienced in policy enforcing or article writing either. Sorry. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:17, 13 May 2008 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bluegoblin7&oldid=1086344689"