Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Galobtter

Galobtter

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (41/8/2); Scheduled to end 09:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination

Galobtter (talk · contribs) – I've seen an increased presence of Galobtter over the past few months, and it's got to the point where if I didn't know he wasn't an admin, I'd have thought he was one. He appears to be able to do a bit of everything; he's become a prolific closer at Templates for discussion, and that alone would be a good reason for getting the tools.

But that's not all he does by any means - he's perfectly capable of writing content and ferreting out sources, he's got a good track record at AfD and CSD, he's not afraid to do a bit of Lua coding, and he's pretty skilled at spotting copyright violations when they turn up on his watch. Most impressively, though, he's helped adjudicate disputes on US politics articles, which might well be one of the most contentious areas of the entire encyclopedia at this time. I've had a good look through his contributions at WP:ANI, and I can't recall a single instance where anybody has objected to anything he's said; on the contrary I see people citing Galobtter as a frequent source of good and sensible advice. Indeed, on a number of occasions he's suggested ways I could be a better admin, so really it should be him nominating me, not the other way round!

Like all good RfA candidates, Galobtter was a little hesitant at coming forward, but I think that not only would he make an ideal asset to the administrative corps, he could end up being one of the very best. Let's give him the chance to show that he can do just that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Co-nomination from TonyBallioni

Galobtter originally registered on Wikipedia in 2013, but truly became active in October of last year. Since then, he hasn't looked back and has become one of the most prolific contributors to this project of ours. He can frequently be found in project and policy discussions providing his insights. I don't always agree with him, but he is always well reasoned, civil, and sane.

While he doesn't have any huge article creations or recognized content-- which is normally a red flag for me, I prefer to see that people aren't on Wikipedia for the video game aspect before nominating-- I think a serious look at Galobtter's contributions shows someone who knows what we are here for. He contributes to the field of American politics, which everyone should know is contentious, and his contributions there are excellent in a field where excellence is difficult. He knows what we are here to do, and I have no qualms supporting this request for adminship. I hope you will join me. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Co-nomination from MelanieN

I have "known" Galobtter for a year or more, because we edit many of the same articles. I have been impressed with what a valuable contributor he is at those articles - adding content, improving existing material, and commenting with good judgment and common sense at the talk pages. Recently I took a closer look at him, discovered the many other ways he contributes to the encyclopedia, and realized that with his many talents he would make a fine administrator. He has been here since 2013 and highly active since 2017. He has more than 25,000 edits and a clean block log. He is a new page reviewer and a template editor. He does a lot of NAC closures at TfD and RfD, and some at AfD; his closes are accurate and reflect a good understanding of policy. His outstanding CSD and PROD logs show a thorough knowledge of deletion criteria. (He shows commendable transparency by providing links to all of these logs on his user page.) He sometimes closes longstanding RfCs, explaining his reasons well and helping to reduce that backlog. Above all, I believe he has the temperament we look for in an administrator. He edits and discusses at very contentious pages without ever getting contentious himself; he is always calm and reasonable, and I have seen him help to calm a heated discussion and keep it on track. I think Galobtter would be an excellent addition to our admin corps. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Ritchie333, TonyBallioni, and MelanieN for your wonderful nomination statements! It is a honour to be nominated by folks I consider among my favourite people on Wikipedia, and I gladly accept. Standard disclosures: I have never edited for pay, but have participated in one research survey for which I did not receive any compensation and in the process made this close of an RfC. I have one alternative account, an approved bot. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I mainly want to continue in the administrative-related areas I’ve been working at as a non-admin. Closing and evaluating discussions is something I enjoy so as an admin I’d like to continue the closes that I’ve been doing at WP:TFD to keep down the perennial backlog there. I also have experience with NACs at WP:RFD and would like to help there too. While working at WP:AFC and WP:NPP I regularly spot and request revdels for copyright violations and would be aided by the tools. Additionally, I patrol userpages for spam, where there’s a lot of WP:CSD work to be done.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I do a wide range of things on Wikipedia so what contributions I’m proud of on Wikipedia span different areas. The first article I heavily started working on and sucked me into Wikipedia is Properties of Water, which was in a quite bad shape despite its obvious importance, and I’ve done quite a bit of work on it, referencing and rewriting portions of the article. On a similar vein, while Donald Trump gets a lot of attention, one thing that is often missed among the controversy is simple cleanup work like trimming the article when it gets too long, updating it, organizing it, and rewriting sections for neutrality or to be clearer, and so I’ve done a lot of that work. Among my article creations, I’m especially happy with how the article Frances Roth, my most substantial creation, turned out, and with Gamble v. United States as it was quite widely viewed.

I do work in regards to templates and modules, helping complete merges and such at WP:TFDH–it’s a small group that works at TFDH and with modules. I also have created a script for viewing, adding, and editing short descriptions, Shortdesc helper, which quite a few people have used, and run a bot.

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: Certainly I’ve had conflicts! I don’t think one can do a lot of editing without getting into any sort of conflict; and since I edit often in the area of American Politics (and especially Donald Trump and related articles), I’ve definitely participated in my fair share of them. One thing I keep in mind when arguing over latest hot button political issue is that the people I’m arguing with are also striving to help the encyclopedia and keep a neutral point of view and that there’s the definite possibility I’m wrong on the point and need to change my mind. That I try to work with and listen to rather than fight with people means I have a friendly-enough relationship with most people who participate in those invariably heated disputes even if we’re very at odds.

In those disputes, I don’t get involved in too much lengthy back-and-forth arguing because doing so doesn’t change people’s mind and only adds heat to the dispute; and I disengage before I'm tempted to say something I really shouldn’t. The same idea of disengagement applies to those few people who I simply do not get along with - I avoid those people to reduce unnecessary conflict.

I don’t think I’m anywhere near perfect at dealing with disputes, but I do my best so that they are resolved with the least acrimony and result in the best outcome for the encyclopaedia, and would continue to try to do so if I become an admin (or don’t become one).

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Iffy

4. Your userpage has a section that encourages users to self-nominate at RfA instead of being nominated by other users. Why did you then choose to accept a nomination from 3 admins instead of self-nominating yourself? Iffy★Chat -- 10:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

A: My essay is messaged to RfA voters, not RfA candidates. It asks that RfA voters not judge people based on self-noms, not that RfA candidates not have nominators. I don't think I'd have nominated myself through this process without the knowledge that people I respect think I'll be a good admin and are willing to nominate me for that; that is why you see this candidacy with nominators. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from SoWhy

5. Looking through your AFD record, I was a bit puzzled by your nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trader Sam's Enchanted Tiki Bar which ist recent and seems in violation of WP:BEFORE. Could you elaborate on this? Do you stand by your nomination?

A: I stand by my nomination though I know that most people disagreed with it (had I been convinced it was notable I would've withdrawn the nomination). I did do a WP:BEFORE; some of the sources that Oakshade listed I did find; if I remember a couple I didn't; however, as I explained in the AfD, these did not in my view have the depth or independence required to write a neutral non-stub article and to pass the revised WP:NORG. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC) add negator to make the answer make sense Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Mr Ernie

6 Please explain how your redaction here lines up with the BLP policy. How is calling a claim "wild" or "shocking" a BLP violation? Mr Ernie (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

A: Your comment, as I explained there, questions the credibility of someone's statement - near as much saying they are making it up - which for a WP:BLP should not be done without a good WP:RS or not done at all. Both she and Kavnaugh are protected by BLP. It isn't a BLP violation against Kavanaugh to talk about the accusation against him without calling it a falsehood.  Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Andrew D.

7 Please explain your account name and signature – "Galobtter (pingó mió)".

A: My account name has no meaning that I know of; just something made up that I use as a name on the internet everywhere. I have "pingó mió" ("ping me") in that signature because I liked how it sounded, I think people should ping me, and it is somewhat unique to have a diacritic in one's signature rather than colors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

8. Do you think WP:BLP subject article title need not be WP:NPOV and can be titled as False and misleading statements by subject name as per WP:TITLE ? Particularly it would imply to outsiders that Wikipedia states that everything in the article it is proven fact it is False ?

A: You're making the assumption that that title is not WP:NPOV. That title is. As I said over there WP:YESPOV means we certainly can state in wikivoice that Trump made false and misleading statements, because such a thing isn't seriously contested in reliable sources.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

9. Can you explain how does not violate WP:ATTACK , WP:POVFORK , WP:BLP (i.e. avoid sensationalism) as raised by other editors. Particularly as it is a WP:BLP ? As per your edits and support for the move Talk:Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Requested_move_25_October_2018Veracity of statements by Donald Trump → Donald Trump's false and misleading claims and while another editor feels it is attack page and marks for G10

A: The reason it does not violate any of those policies or guidelines, is because Trump's proclivity for falsehoods is well sourced, with numerous academic sources, as I listed there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky

10. What additional measures, if any, do you intend to take regarding your Admin. account security?

A: My current password is strong and unique to Wikipedia. I'll have to look in to how Wikipedia's 2FA works more before I can decide whether to enable it (I'm concerned about being locked out of my account) but I will likely do so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Nosebagbear

11. What aspect of Wikipedia activity that you actually do (occasionally or otherwise) participate in would you say you are worse at (and why)?

A: Hmm..I'm having trouble coming up with a good answer to that; one thing I'd say, is that while I do run a bot, my skills with bot-work and the language I code it in (Python) are not very extensive as I only code occasionally as a hobby. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Nosebagbear

12. In your AfD !votes you have a 78.3% delete vote. Instead of the traditional inclusionist/deletionist query, I'd instead ask - why is redirect (3.9%) and merge (2.5%) so rare for you, even in AfDs you didn't nominate? Given the preference for alternatives to deletion in Wikipedia I was wondering why you'd made use of these quite so rarely?

A: I don't think my support of those alternatives is rare, relative to other people at least. I think the WP:ATDs are important and personally always look for alternatives such as redirection before nominating anything for deletion. Perhaps because my WP:AFD focus is on companies and organizations, of which those that are at AfD are small and don't really have much in the way of redirect or merge targets, that the percentage may be low. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Galobtter: Galobtter (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Galobtter can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Solid candidate, not merely a net positive to the project, but an all-round bonus. knows spam when they see it. Content creation is possibly on the weak side, but recent RfA history suggests that won't be an onerous issue, and far-outweighed by their robust, but nuanced, communication skills and technical abilities. I find the opposes emphasising tenure wholly unconvincing. ——SerialNumber54129 09:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Support- seen Galobtter around and I think this candidate is sensible and clueful. Reyk _YO! 09:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Support - An impressive candidate who has earned the trust and confidence of the community. Clearly has the required knowledge, Wikipedia experience and skills to be given to admin mop. No reason to oppose.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
5. Support per strong noms. Galotter is about as good a candidate as one could get, a real "Wiki-polymath" who I trust to wield the mop properly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
6. Support precious "thanks for doing the needful" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
7. Support Pleased to see this one come up. Has even created a bot account. If he can handle bots carefully then I'm sure he'll use the tools carefully as well. Minima© (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
8. Support Happy to see this too. Levelheaded candidate. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
9. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
10. Support. The fact that Galobtter has really only been active here for about a year looks like a red flag on the face of it, but the quantity and quality of that year's work says enough for me where the mere passage of more time would not. I'm really not concerned over a lack of new article starts or writing articles to certain standards, as I see the maintenance and development of existing articles as far more important at the project's current stage of development - the fight against grey goo is what we mostly need. Excellent nominations from three very well respected nominators too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
11. Support Meets my RfA criteria. Would have loved to see a self-nom in relation to Q4 but that's not a reason not to support here. Iffy★Chat -- 10:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
12. Support Of course. Vermont (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
13. Support. I particularly like your answer to question 3. Deb (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
14. Support Good user, experienced, competent. (wasn't that last one usually the one criteria for RfA early on?) ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 11:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
15. Support - With 3 such able co-nominators, there would have to be something which really stood out to oppose. There isn't. Good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
16. Support - seen around and I have no reason to doubt his excellent nominators. I give no credence to the sole opposition as anyone who cares about a topic or article will rack up edits on it. Galobtter has made 7.3% of the total changes to Donald Trump. I've made 64.1% of all changes to Rust (video game) and 58.2% to Fallout 4: Far Harbor, and a decent portion of all mainspace edits I made in August were to the former (though I was quite busy off-wiki that month and the GAN happened then). I wouldn't call dedication obsession. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
17. Support Was going to approach him myself in December! Does good work, keeps a level head, and will make use of the tools in at least a dozen different places. A welcome addition to the galley. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
18. Not an admin yet? Time to fix that. —Kusma (t·c) 12:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
19. Support on the strength of Q5 alone. That nom and your analysis was/remains spot on. A travesty that it closed as keep and that no one recommended merger to the hotel article. czar 12:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
20. Support. I've seen the nominee around and agree with the nominators that they are an excellent candidate, and will do a great job. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
21. Support - Christmas is coming early this year! I'm very familiar with Galobtter's work and have found him to be consistently thoughtful in his approach and a catalyst for resolving content disputes. Until now, I was not aware that Galobtter had made improvements to Properties of water which I just happened to read a few days ago while also reading Color of water. Nice work.- MrX 🖋 12:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
22. Support. Solid candidate. I don't find MONGO's oppose to be particularly convincing. The graph shows a huge increase in edits from this year to the last, but their last year's edit count was 5,266. They've been consistently very active since October 2017 (1000–2000 edits) and I'm satisfied that they're sufficiently familiar with policy to serve as an admin. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
23. Support – I've seen Galobtter around and have no issues with them becoming an administrator. The opposes are entirely unconvincing. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
24. Support Provides good humor and sense to discussions.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 13:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
25. Support Not a jerk, has clue. I find the opposes unconvincing. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
26. Support Knowledgeable, reliably doing good all over the place; I like what I have seen in discussions so far; and no warning signals. Have a mop. ("doesn't stand out compared to other qualified editors", my aunt Jemima... what is this, the editing Oscars? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
27. Support No-brainer. ∯WBG^converse 13:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
28. Support. I've seen the candidate around and have always been impressed with their work. Galobtter is knowledgeable, has plenty of clue, and will be a welcome addition to the admin team. Good luck! -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
29. Support per my nomination, and I’d add that I don’t think we should have a standard that effectively bars anyone who edits in AP2 from passing RfA: the area is toxic and no edit you make will be universally agreed upon and it will always be considered POV by someone. So long as G doesn’t use the tools in AP2 it’s fine that he edits there. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
30. Support Sure. talk to !dave 13:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
31. Support Well worth it. I think he would make an excellent admin, and the 25k edits, and small number of pages edits, are completely inconsequential. It is no bar to entry to the Admin Corps. scope_creep^Talk 13:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
32. Support as co-nominator. -- MelanieN (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
33. Support ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 13:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
34. Support. I thought he already was one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
35. Support A safe pair of hands from all I've seen. I was going to ask the question about 2FA but Leaky caldron beat me to it, and I'm happy with the answer. Cabayi (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
36. Support I think you are ready. CLCStudent (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
37. Support I've seen the candidate around, and like what I've seen. Trustworthy noms, good answers to questions. Opposes not a concern. Miniapolis 14:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
38. Support ― weegaweek ❀  t  c  14:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
39. I've considered Galobtter a potential admin. feminist (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
40. Support. Just a few days ago I was seriously thinking about asking Galobtter if they wanted to do an RfA; what a coincidence! While I don't think the oppose concerns are invalid, none of them make me think that Galobtter would frequently use the admin tools inappropriately, which is all that really matters. Not all admins have to have 10 GAs and an FA.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
41. Support Not swayed by editcountitis and honestly thought he was an admin already. Katie^talk 15:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Almost all edits done in the last year [1] and little in terms of article creation with only 16 article starts and only one of which attains an assessment of "B". Almost one in 20 edits has been to articles related to Donald Trump indicating an obsession with that subject matter. Write some substantive articles and try again next year.--MONGO (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose Way too soon. My interactions with Galobtter have been neutral to positive, but they have really only been seriously editing a very short time. Their editing appears to me exactly what one would do if one wanted to fly below the radar, obtain adminship, and then push an agenda. POV pushing admins have a chilling effect on the neutrality of the encyclopedia, and it's a situation we need to carefully avoid. Let's wait and see. Jacona (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   The last time I checked, WP:NPA was still a policy. Surprisingly, I see even ABGF has stayed same.......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs) 13:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

3. Oppose per concerns with NPOV on political topics. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   @Mr Ernie: Would you mind elaborating on what your concerns are? My experience has been that Galobtter has very good working knowledge of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I'm surprised to see your comment. - MrX 🖋 12:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Oppose, doesn't stand out compared to other qualified editors, with just 25k edits and only started editing actively less than a year ago. No GAs or DYKs, no solid need for the tool (intention to work at TfD, RfD and copyvios is mentioned but the first two can be done via the "holding cell" and they haven't contributed much to the 3rd area - just 12 speedy nominations for copyvio out of 200+). 30% of their mainspace edits are automated, 1000+ of their edits are to Donald Trump and its associated talk page that are mostly reverts and removal of other editor contributions. With just 16 created articles (9 of those created in the past few months) that are mostly splits from other articles (i.e. List of honors and awards received by Donald Trump), disambiguations, stubs and redirects that were later expanded by other editors (i.e. Pardon of Joe Arpaio). Their best created article seems to be less than 17,000 bytes, somewhere between stub and Start-class. Galobtter is a lovely editor, we've interacted multiple times but I think they'll become truly qualified in the coming years, as right now they do not meet my RfA criteria and I must oppose for all the above reasons despite the likelihood of this RfA passing is very high as I believe they're likable enough for the community to accept them as an administrator. The nominators for this candidate are highly-respected but I don't believe a candidate should be supported merely because they have the backing of good nominators. Flooded with them hundreds 12:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   Without touching on your criteria, let me just say that RfD has no "holding cell" and Galo has been a thoughtful and considerate contributor there, and would be a huge hand; there are only a handful of us active at RfD. As for copyvio work, you may not be aware that there is more than just the blunt instrument of G12; Galobtter has done a number of reversions and requests for WP:RD1 redaction via {{revdel}}, a review of which appear to be quite appropriate and well done. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   "Just" 25,000 edits?? Are you serious?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   Flooded with them hundreds, these criteria of yours were very confusing to me at first, and then I checked the history. You seemed to have created this today. I then thought them very odd, so I dug around. May 2016 is a very specific day, but that’s when your previous account Zawl became active. 7 blocks is also highly specific and about 6 too many for most RfA voters, as you know, but then I looked at the Zawl block log and see 6 blocks here and one on commons. You also claim 42 articles created through August, so I’m assuming you have around 50 now.

   What it looks like to me is that you’re trying to prove a point by creating a numerical criteria you can pass but most other candidates can’t in some way to prove a point after your RfA was snow closed (this being the first since then.) That seems pretty POINTy to me, and I’m raising it for the closing crat. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

5. Oppose. My interaction with Galobtter was a rather heavy handed application of warnings about post-1932 politics and sanctions on me, etc etc. I'm a big boy; I can stand it. When I questioned the approach, I got the motte and bailey defense. What worries me is an admin with no bedside manner. We need more nurturing admins if we are to recover from our reputation of biting new editors. We need admins who lead by example, not yanking scary tags from the rulebook. Rhadow (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   That's pretty much a standard template of awareness for anybody who decides to work in areas with DS, the second line of which states It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.. FWIW, the ArbCom has prescribed the exact wording and it cannot be even slightly altered.∯WBG^converse 13:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   Yeh, yeh, I know all that. The point is that Galobtter swooped in, picked two editors from the host of editors working on an article of a protege of our president, and tagged us. It's easy to hide behind the standard wording of the tag. No involvement in the article, no previous discussion of my editing, nothing. It's like those billboards that say, "Voter fraud is a felony." Rhadow (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   Galobbter tagged the editors who were adding well-sourced content to the article only. They argued for censoring the article for various reasons with tenuous policy support. As far as I can see, they did not put the discretionary warning template on any of the editors who actually were violating policy, only on the editors with whom they disagreed.Jacona (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   Did you two check to verify that the editors on the other side had not already been alerted recently? The alert procedure requires that no-one be warned more than once a year. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

6. Oppose, due to redaction of someone else's comment in Q6 - and justifying it here. The whole discussion was rife with BLP issues - someone questioning a stmt was far from the most concerning.Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
7. Oppose - the majority of my interactions with this editor demonstrates a serious lack of the much needed editing skills and qualities of patience and unbiased neutrality the community deserves in its sysops. I use the term unbiased neutrality because I’m of the mind that bias tends to distort one’s own perception of NPOV, particularly when it gets into bias by omission. Matt Lauer is one article that comes to mind as does the spin-off article I created that he immediately supported deleting. The AfD closed with support to merge, but attempts to do just that were met with opposition. I had to call an RfC because a merge was not taking place, and he actually requested that I withdraw my RfC. What it boiled down to (at that time) was a whitewashing of the Lauer article as a result of bias by omission regarding Lauer’s sexual misconduct, and that should raise concerns among others in the community. The article has been adjusted/corrected since then but this editor’s past interactions demonstrate some of the potential issues and what I’ve come to know as his behavioral pattern, and it clearly conflicts with his being able to properly use the mop. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 13:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   @Atsme:--(edit conflict)Self redacted.∯WBG^converse 14:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   WBG, your comment was out of line. My interactions with Galobtter involve other topics and I will/can add more if needed, so your attempt to discredit me is noted, and reflects badly on you. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   Matt Lauer issue has nothing to do with AmPol stuff.--MONGO (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   Edit conflicted and redacted. Weird lines of thought and apologies to Atsme. On a note, I certainly don't mean to discredit you:-) ∯WBG^converse 14:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   Apology accepted - that sounds more like the WBG I’ve come to know. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

8. Oppose Actually appears reasonable at AfD percentages, but I am concerned over such a high percentage (~98%) of total edits occurring within just over a single year. I fear the odds of a disappearing admin (suddenly appearing, then suddenly dormant) have been far too high in the past, alas. Another 8 months or so would greatly reduce this fear. Collect (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning oppose Landing here for now, but leaning oppose per Q6. While I accept that WP:BLP applies to talk pages, the bar for redacting someone else's comment on a talk page should be fairly high, and I just don't see how this even comes close to meeting it. As a result, it comes across as distinctly WP:NPOV. Curious to read more contributions and to see how other's land on this point.--Korruski^Talk 12:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2. I was going to oppose, probably narcissisticly, because the one interaction I recall (typical WP gamesplaying on an article talk page discussion somewhere) stuck in my craw at the time. However, 5 of the current 8 opposes are kind of nuts, and I don't want to look like I'm part of that. So a disgruntled neutral will have to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

General comments

• @Mr Ernie: You may wish to clarify that it was a) your comment that was redacted, and b) that the link you provide...provides your answer. ——SerialNumber54129 11:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

A living person was accused of drugging and gang-raping girls over a 2 year period. I attempted to be conservative with those claims, since there was no evidence. To my surprise the candidate said the accuser's "claim" should have the BLP protection, not the accused, which I would like the candidate to clarify. Please bring further comments to my talk page, instead of here. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem, you see, is that it might appear to some spectators that your oppose is based on a previous dispute with the candidate—even if it is not. For the record, in that move discussion dispute I was actually on your; side, but as the closer said, "both sides have good arguments". Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 12:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• @JaconaFrere: - The candidate has a couple of thousand edits in Trump or Trump-related fields (not known for lack of controversy or visibility). I'm not sure if I support yet, so could you expand on how he might be "flying below the radar" before then pushing a POV? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• @JaconaFrere: Galobtter is a template editor, much like myself. In fact, our editing pattern strikes me as reasonably similar, my account also being registered in 2013 and me really taking up editing in December last year. And yet, Galobtter has been editing the highly controversial topic of Donald Trump. I've done some editing in the ARBPIA area, but that mostly consists of me expressing my view on the talk page! Galobtter is far less "under the parapet" than I am. Why is my editing like that? Because I'm good at reverting vandalism. I'm good at writing templates, modules, and scripts. I'm far better in these areas than in content creation, and editing controversial topics where DUE is important. I generally stick to the stuff I'm good at, although writing content is fun, hence I continue to do it on occasion (coming up with an uncovered topic is the hardest aspect for me). But it certainly isn't the behavior of somebody trying to get the tools to push a POV. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

---

• I don't see how the meaning of one's username is relevant or pertinent to this (or any) nominee's ability to use administrator powers. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

---

• For those stating comments among the lines of "This editor has managed to get only 25,000 edits in the one year they have been editing," I just want to point out that 25,000 edits on one year is a lot of edits in that period of time. I believe there are some administrators who have been editing for almost half a decade with less edits than that. Steel1943 (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  The number of edits are far less concern than for how long they have been seriously editing, which in this case extends back only to 10/2017. The quality of the edits are also a concern, as I am not seeing anything substantive such as a single GA much less FA level work, nor contributions in the peer review or assessments of those level of articles. I do not write down anywhere my "criteria for adminship" but I do expect to see 2 years active editing and at least some substantive GA or better yet FA level contributions, and this candidate fails in both those primary editing criterias for me.--MONGO (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• There is far more lacking than just his number of edits, only 33.4% in main space, which begs the question, what other qualities is he bringing to earn such a position of trust by the community? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)