Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bluegoblin7 3: Difference between revisions

Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs)

End date: 21 June 2009, 18:30UTC Ok, i've thought about it long and hard for the past few days, and i've decided to give an RfA a go, also after various nudges from various people. I think in the large my edits and admin actions in the past speak for themselves as to why I should re-gain the mop. Granted, i've made some mistakes, but then so has everyone. I admit that the recent debacle regarding flood flag was blown out of proportion - and that I am partly to blame - and I think now that the guidelines around this tool have been made clearer such an incident won't happen again. I understand that people may be apprehensive about re-granting me the tool, and I can fully understand any opposes that there may be because of this. If this fails, it fails, and to be honest i'm not that fussed if it passes or not. I can (and am) still help the encyclopedia in other ways (indeed, i'm turning my attention away from RfDs and discussions and more to content building) if I don't have the tools, and so it's really not a big deal to me. Primarily, I don't have to watch my G6s sitting in the QD cat for hours, nor do I have to patrol new pages without actually being able to click patrolled ;). Please do ask questions, and i'll do my best to answer them all. Anyway, comments please :) Goblin 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nickers![reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Goblin 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nickers![reply]

1. I've always supported BG7 and I still trust him; that's the most important thing. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support : He is a good and tested wikipedian with nearly 7500 edits on his credits...-- Deoxyribonucleic Acid 19:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I still have trust for BG7. He resigned his bit after he felt frustrated because he was wrongly blocked after he declined to discuss something that is not technically against policy with other admins. It is true that he should not have flooded Recent Changes and it is also true that he should have consulted with the other admins; ie: flooding RC. I can fully understand his frustration about being wrongly blocked and I think others may also have given back their bit had the same thing happened to them. I agree that BG7 can be rash at times, such as threatening to delete all one line stubs if a certain RFD passed. My reasons for support also include a desire to see the whole NVS/BG7 issue reset to the way it was prior to its happening. This is in the interests of fairness. That's all I have to say. Thanks, good luck! fr33kman ^talk 19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose I was against BG getting the tools the first time because of his unstable attitude and his tendency to lean towards WP:OWNership issues and possibility of wheel warring. I have found his issues with ownership have not gotten better but gotten worse over the time since he gained the mop the first time. He is completely unwilling to discuss issues he has and tends to draw a line in discussion. He said he would work on this when we gave him the mop the first time however, I don't think its gotten any better as can be evidenced of the situation that erupted the other day which could have easily been diffused if he would have stopped for a moment and talk without sarcasm and attacking language. Communication skills are the most important skill an admin should have and unfortunately I find BG to be completely lacking in this area. Definitely needs some time as a regular editor to mature and to work on improving those skills which admins require such as team work and tact. Posting a RfDeA which was clearly done out of anger and retaliation has all but strengthened my belief that he does not have maturity for such a position. If he would have just walked away from the situation I would have been impressed enough to possibly overlook some of the other issues. I am more than willing to reconsider in the future, but the actions of BG over the last little while have all but summed up my perfect example of what an admin should not be. -Djsasso (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose I'm very sorry, but I don't really trust you with the mop anymore. Djsasso brought up some concerns about ownership; I also don't really think you've shown maturity in some of your actions with the mop; opening up an RfDA against NVS was not (IMHO) a good faith action; you reverted an admin's good faith close when you had an extremely clear COI. Lastly, I (frankly) think you're a bit of a loose cannon. I would support in several months, but now, I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose. Sorry. Shappy ^talk 18:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sorry, but not right now. You've made far too many odd moves lately, the RfDA being one. I was wary of you becoming one originally because I thought there were issues. Unfortunately I was right. Majorly talk 18:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Well, I can’t trust Bluegoblin7 at this moment. He has done a lot of good work with the admin tools, but also a very big mistake. The recent events with the flood flag debacle is still in my mind. The mentioned problems by Djsasso are also true. Bluegoblin7, you have a lack of communication skills. Some users told you, that you should not delete many pages in a very short time without the flag, even if this was on IRC. Your reaction wasn’t a good one. Yesterday, you have posted a request for de-adminship for NonvocalScream. I closed this (yes, I know, I am not a bureaucrat) per WP:SNOW, because the result was very clear. I know it was probably not right, but one of our ‘crats closed it later with the same reason. I think this RfdA was more like a revenge. I can’t agree with you judgement at the moment. And I also have to agree with Djsasso's comment about ownership. I have some worries, if you have the tools now. Well, You should work on yourself, to improve the risen concerns. Bluegoblin7, you are not right to get the tools back. (If the grammar is very bad, feel free to change it, but don't change the meaning) Barras (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me comment on the RfdA quickly (i'll comment on the opposes individually later...), the RfdA was in no way meant as a grudge/get back etc etc. That's not the sort of person I am. I filed the RfdA because I felt that it was the best thing for the wiki. I never expected it to "pass", but knew that the whole Flood Flag mess needed sorting out and that was one of the ways that that needed to be done imo. Goblin 19:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]