There are 17 administrators, and 4 bureaucrats (24%).
End date: 09:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Several users have suggested to me that I run when I become eligible, so here goes nothing! I understand that there may still be some concerns from users following events over the past 18 months, but I hope that since re-passing RfA I have shown that I have matured some more and become a much better wiki editor. Why do I want the 'crat tools? Simply put, to just be able to help out some more. I know we've got a lot of arguments regarding the "need" for more admins/crats at the moment, so this might be seen as bad timing, but I can also assure you that 'crat is in no way a "goal" or a "reward" for me - I'm only running because several members of the community have suggested that I do so because, presumably, they feel that I would make a good bureaucrat. As for the "need" argument, I don't personally feel that it is that much of an issue and am trying to stay out of it myself. If you want to know where I stand in more detail then feel free to ask the question, but I don't think there's a need to explain it otherwise.
In terms of what I would do and prior experience, I'm a bureaucrat at a number of other (less active, smaller) wikis so have experience of the technical aspects. In terms of what I would get involved in, I'd be happy to perform renames, close RfXs, grant bot flags and all the other 'crat tasks. I've got experience at enWiki's ACC scheme and the problems faced there with appropriate usernames, SUL conflicts and the like, and hope to transfer that experience to the small number of renames we get if this is successful. As for closing RfXs, certainly initially many of the close-cut ones I will likely leave to other 'crats following some recent "dramaz" regarding them. This is purely for no other reason than experience & personal preference - I know that I would be able to make the 'correct' decision (feel free to ask some examples!) but I have had enough drama surrounding me & my actions in the past here so I just want to play it safe and leave the controversial ones to someone else initially ;-). In terms of bot flags, as everyone probably knows I've got bot experience with GoblinBots 1 through 6 (Though only 3 & 4 are in use at the moment) and so am familiar with the process to grant a bot flag or approve a task. I've done some clerking work at the bot requests area already, and so it would simply mean that I was able to complete the task in hand rather than wait for a 'crat to appear. (Though there's no troubles with waiting - +bot isn't a time-pressured task!)
Anyways, enough waffling! If you want anything clarifying or want to know more, then feel free to ask questions. And please, take the "need" discussions somewhere else (WP:ST or WP:AN) - it's not really appropriate to an individual's RfX when the discussion should be on their (Well, in this case, my) ability to perform the required tasks. Merkey. Goblin 09:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!
Candidate's acceptance:Goblin 09:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!
Support Very skilled and smart, can spell bureaucrat, I hope, and would be good for one too. One part tells me that he would be great at it, but I am rather afraid of his temper (as it changes too usually). However, I don't have any doubt that he is very good with computers, looking through many archives of talk pages and Administrator's Noticeboards, Simple Talk, etc. He seems quite clever and can sometimes be very friendly. I trust him respectfully to win over his small faults soon, and I hope this RFB succeeds. Wish you the best of blessings! Warmly, Belletête-à-tête 10:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Technical support as I believe every admin should be a 'crat Soup Dish (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It has been a while since he threatened to go overboard with his tools. Nifky^ 05:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Some of the examples given under the oppose section can be interpreted differently (or are possibly invalid, IMO, but it is up to the closing bureaucrat to decide). To me, they did not warrant an oppose. ChenzwTalk 16:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Abusing his tools to unblock himself isn't something that warrants an oppose? I must say you have pretty lax standards then. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider that an all-out abuse of rights, he not granting the flood flag to himself was justified to some extent especially when there was an AN discussion about him at that time ("Per the above discussion at AN it would be highly inappropriate of me to flag myself."). The only time that was wrong was the delay between individual deletions, which, apparently, wasn't discussed and didn't warrant a block (we shall not talk about the blocking admin over here). If you want to discuss this further, you might want to move them over to this RfA's talk page. If you think that my standards are too lax and is thus affecting my judgement, I am open to recall. My stand stays as I believe that he is a net positive. ChenzwTalk 17:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Has nothing to do with your judgement. I am merely wondering what you could possibly consider a major abuse. Since removing a block of oneself is about the worst thing an admin can do apart from going on a deletion rampage. -DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Just as some people have to defend an oppose, one may be called to qualify a support :) I would not take it to harshly, we are all in this for the same end goal. I have opposed for the reasons below, and the block is one of the main reasons that I oppose. That I had to block an administrator, a fellow teammate that is elected to help us maintain this wiki, is enough for me. Now, he was blocked because multiple maintainers (read: sysops) had asked him to stop doing something, and he did not stop instead, continuedthe disruption. One should stop doing something and discuss when asked by two or more maintainers to do so, instead of continuing the actions. Not only did he not stop, but he did not wait for another sysop to unblock him. Also, I want to point your attention to this gem where the candidate uses his flag to exert pressure on discussion participants. That he would delete should a deletion discussion in not in favor of his argument. We don't use our flags to serve ourselves, instead, we use it to maintain the wiki. I'm not sure I am comfortable with the candidate handling RFA promotions/demotions with gems like this. With a cooler editing hand, perhaps. I'm not attempting to sway your support/nonsupport here, but at least I wish to leave you informed. With warm regards, Jon@talk:~$ 20:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
support - Knows his stuff, and has changed, in a good way. :) Yottie=talk= 17:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Bureaucrats collectively make one or two actions per week, if that, and combined with the low level of activity on this wiki, I don't see much of any risk. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry I am going to have to oppose this and kick it to a full Rfb if you decide you actually want to run for it. Too many issues (civility, misusing your admin tools to unblock yourself, etc) to be considered a secure admin, let alone a crat. Personally you are a good individual. But some people just shouldn't be crats. Basically you should have made sure you had the crat support before you placed this up because the community no longer !votes on it unless they fail to get the crat support needed. I would also note that you were "away" for most of the time since you became admin again, so hardly any new evidence to go on after barely getting your adminship back (25-9) 6 months ago speaks to perhaps bad decision making as there was clearly hesitance to even make you admin, let alone crat. And I just noticed that you are requesting this the exact day you are elligable, that smacks to me of you treating this as a trophy and a distinct lack of patience. -DJSasso (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I find BG7 to be ill-suited for a 'crat position here. At times he can be aggressive and almost "I don't care what others think, this is how it's got to be because I want it to be" about things. This is an example of one time where I felt he became aggressive and rude to someone who was trying to help. Here, too, I think this is displayed (with the follow up here). His response to Griffinofwales on this RFA doesn't impress me as well. So, overall, I have concerns about his attitude. I also have concerns about the gaps of time between edits. There seem to be periods of 100 edits, then a month off, then 100 more, then a month off. I would like to see more consistent editing from a 'crat. Either way (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Misunderstanding of tools here where myself and one elsewhere requested the candidate stop. 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 him to discuss this.
Propensity to wheel war: reverse administrative actions with no before or after note to the administrator.
For a crat, I need to see better judgement with regards to admins, refenence this DRFA.
BG7 is a great editor, but I don't think is suitable as a crat. Jon@talk:~$ 13:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Per Either way & DJSasso. I have even more diffs where they got theirs. On top of that, you really should have had an existing 'crat nom you (after all, it's required for immediate promotion). Griffinofwales (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Per Either way and Nonvocalscream. I believe you are a very strong editor, but as of right now, your edits do not always display the temperament that I look for in a crat. Kansan (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but I don't believe that you are suitable at this time. I have seen you though at the English Wikipedia and I can attest that you are quite productive but the concerns raised above are well, concerning. Good luck next time! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Per everyone above. —§stay (sic)! 19:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Regretful Oppose I think you're a great editor and person, BG, though I've never (to my remembrance) directly interacted with you, but reading over past archives of ST and AN, there seems to be a little too much drama. Whether rightly or wrongly, bureaucrats are often seen (especially by newcomers - I remember I regarded a bureaucrat with little less than awe when I first came here) as a person to look up to and follow on Wikipedia, and I'm just not sure if you can bear such a great responsibility yet. And with Either way, I agree that I would like for you to be editing here more consistently—the first real burst of editing I'd seen in you for some time was on the day you began this RFB. :) I hope you'll continue helping this project and continue your valuable work here, though, and maybe in the future I'll support. Very kindly, —Clementinatalk 08:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per all the opposes above. However, you are a good user: get some better conduct. —I-20the highway 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Not the right temperment for the job. Razorflame 20:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I have read the examples provided by others (above), and agree with ttheir sentiments. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Regretful oppose per above comments. Ι-ση // ταlκ ραgeψ 22:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
As an IP I cannot vote, but I would just like to add my support for Bluegoblin7. The bottom line is that he does good work on this wiki, and is a net positive. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2010 (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.