Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Galobtter

Galobtter

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (68/11/5); 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)

Additional question from Kirbanzo

13. User Tryptofish brought up this diff: [1] in the oppose section, as well as his reply: [2]. Care to explain what happened, and why, since this could be used against your RfA?

A: I was typing up a response to Tryptofish below, but since this question has been asked, I'll put it here: The comment wasn't principally directed towards Tryptofish or anyone in particular. I wrote that comment because I was agreeing with the sentiment of Ian.thomson's comments at this discussion, where he says that Another thought: WP:DICK probably applies to intentionally putting trigger images in the articles on phobias. Not just WP:Don't be a jerk, but WP:DICK. Putting it in there as a moment of stupidity is excusable, but it takes a rather trollish sumnabitch to say "let's put images that trigger phobias in the articles on said phobias". Essentially, I was expressing that: unless one believes everyone to be making it up, there are some people who would be affected quite severely by displaying the image; so deliberately displaying the image (instead of collapsing it), is well .. not nice at the very least. I don't regularly imply that people or groups of people are jerks (actually, this has to be only instance I have, since telling someone not to be a jerk has never helped any dispute ever, including this one), and I realize that it wasn't very tactful considering the discussion already was very heated, but this has to be the only dispute I have participated in where I really felt one option would actually harm people rather than merely be worse, and I suppose I did throw some gasoline on the fire because I felt that strongly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Wumbolo

14. Over at Frances Roth, is the 130-word quote in the section "Culinary Institute of America" necessary? Could it be replaced with a single-sentence summary?

A:

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)
42. Support Good spotter of all things BLP and copyright related and we definitely need more of that so why not :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
43. Support Seen this user around lately, lots of good activity. Seems ready for it. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
44. Support – largely per the nominators. I do not see an edit count of 25,000 or a year of active editing as an issue, when there is more than enough evidence to show that giving Galobtter the tools would help the project. Taking a look at Frances Roth convinces me that he knows what he's doing when it comes to writing an article; I am unsure how this article could be called "somewhere between stub and Start-class" down in the oppose section. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
45. Support Supports quality content and no major conflicts. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 17:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
46. Support per most. Though he's only been really active for just over a year, he has a good track record, and his edit summary usage really couldn't be much better. His edit count is good, and he has sufficient user rights to suggest he knows what he's doing. I also trust Ritchie and Tony's opinions almost to a fault on RfA, and if you can get one to nominate you, you'll probably pass, if both nominate you you're golden. Definitely a net positive to the project. WizardKing 17:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
47. Support totally unpersuaded by the majority of opposition shrubbery. Should be able to get the hang of things. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
48. Support - I've had the privlege of working (read: doing Wikipedia stuff) with Gablotter at times, so I know he's a good person for the job. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
49. Support - we need admins badly, and I trust that Galobtter will be a good one. He'll learn on the job, just like every other admin does. schetm (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
50. Support for meeting basic criteria. Opposition, so far, seems like mostly too little tenure (he's got a good year plus) and edit count (only 25K?!). I see no evidence he'll abuse the tools. Ifnord (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
51. Support. No concerns about this dedicated editor having the mop. bd2412 T 19:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
52. Support All of my interactions with them have indicated that they are a solid Wikipedian, and I don't find the opposing arguments particularly convincing. The short amount of time on Wikipedia is mildly concerning, but I'd be a bit of a hypocrite to vote no on the basis of that alone. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
53. Support. I'm a bit hesitant about the ~1 year tenure and the content work, but there is more than enough good stuff to outweigh that. Their record with CSD, PROD, and AfD is just fine. They're contributions to the drama boards are well thought-out and nuanced. They've done a fair bit of actual content work (even if it isn't article creation or rewriting something top to bottom) and it's good work. There's a lot of smoke and not much fire to the allegations of non-neutral editing: I dug through some of their contributions to AP2 topics, and I see nothing of concern. Absent firmer evidence of actual misconduct (rather than, you know, having a policy-based opinion) those opposes should be disregarded. I have huge respect for the nominators. Requiring more than 25k edits is absurd (happened at my RFA, too, wasn't any less absurd there). Overall, I think they'd be a definite net positive with the mop. Vanamonde (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
54. Support. I don’t think the somewhat low statistics is a significant factor. One year is plenty of time and the candidate has done great work so far, as noted in detail by the nominators. I’ve looked through the interaction-related oppose points and don’t see an issue there. Could he have acted better in some cases? Sure, but the areas involved are often contentious with heated arguments inevitable, and administrators in those areas (and really throughout Wikipedia) routinely get away with significantly worse conduct. Galobtter strikes me as sincerely willing to learn and help in areas that need it. ZettaComposer (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
55. Support per assets described above and per Collect's oppose. When an editor has done as much as Galobtter has in the span of a year, I think we should go ahead and give them the opportunity to make the most of the mop now, rather than defer so long that we risk candidates running out of steam for the project by the time we're finally willing to promote. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
56. Support per noms, whom I hold in high regard. This is a solid editor with no red or yellow flags. While I respect any established editor's right to their own opinions, and I dislike badgering, I must state that the opposes are unpersuasive at best. In some instances I find them to be unreasonable... bordering on frivolous. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
57. Support. I see no evidence that the tools would be abused and do see a need for them. If this RfA was run ten or more years ago, tenure would not be a concern raised and this probably would have been the most active RfA to date. I don't find lack of tenure and only 25k edits to be anything to oppose on the basis of. That merely promotes having fewer administrators and scaring off those who are qualified, but maybe don't have 15 years tenure. So long as the candidate has adequate experience, (demonstrated) knowledge, is unlikely to misuse the tools, and has a demonstrate need, then I do not see an issue with them. Others may disagree with me on that, and that is totally fine and something I respect. The above has lead me to support the candidate and wish Galobtter luck. If this RfA passes, please feel free to reach out to your noms/other admins and I would strongly recommend reading WP:ADMINGUIDE if you haven't already. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
58. Support the editor having been so active primarily in the last year is not a negative--it shows a new, higher level of engagement. Tenure concerns seem very overblown. And the editor's contributions have been largely positive and well-sourced. To echo above, basically a "safe pair of hands here." ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
59. Support. Usually I'm not very familiar with the candidates. Not this one. All of my interaction with Galobtter has been great. They are insightful, policy-knowledgeable, and communicate well. They are also temperamentally suited to the job. One comment. To the extent I understand TonyBallioni's comment about Galobtter and AP2, I disagree. The standard for whether Galobtter is WP:INVOLVED would be the same no matter what area of the project they may edit in - the number of AP2 articles is very large.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

    Bbb23, yes, just to clarify since I was pinged, I was saying that to the extent to which they are involved with an AP2 article, I would expect that they would behave similarly to the way MelanieN does here: just as a regular editor and not as an admin. If there were an AP2 dispute where INVOLVED didn't apply to them, I wouldn't expect Galobtter or any other admin to recuse themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

    Thanks for the clarification, TB!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

60. Support partially per noms but mostly because I have issues with 6 of the 9 opposes which range from "I get where they're coming from but I wouldn't oppose based on that" (the need for more admins outweighs content creation issues IMO) to "this is disrupting WP to illustrate a point". — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
61. Support. Candidate ticks the boxes that matter to me in an admin. Intelligence, sense of ethics, level-headedness, control of emotions, no emotional issues or "behavioral disorders" (or at least none that manifest in Wikipedia editing), general civility and common respect (does not subscribe to the "justifiable incivility" doctrine), sufficient policy knowledge to start and the capacity to continue to learn. That list alone puts him in a tiny minority. I do not require that a candidate be free of past mistakes or judgment errors, nor do I care much about the metrics commonly cited at RfA. Whether his skin is thick enough for him to handle adminship without imploding is never really tested until one tries it, but I'm willing to accept his apparent opinion that it is. Masculine personal pronouns: Candidate's user page is in Category:Male Wikipedians. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
62. Support. I don't care that he's only been around a year - Wikipedia needs administrators and this user is a good candidate. I'm of the opinion that these useless and arbitrary "criteria" in terms of editing tenure are killing good RFA candidates like this one, and I hope the closing crat gives less weight to those opposes. Not that we should hand the mop to brand-new editors, but this is a good editor with a good reputation and a lot to offer - I say fuck it, let's do it. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 22:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
63. Support. Qualified, per the nominators, and the opposes are unpersuasive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
64. Support. Based on answers to the questions posed. Good closes at templates for discussion per Ritchie333. Excellent candidate that appears to have a clue! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
65. Support. Candidate has a generally good record that I have seen. Some of the opposes make little sense to me, and while others make sense, they lack the strength to turn me away from supporting this good candidate. So I concur with three noms and supporters thus far. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  23:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
66. Support - Some opposers are concerned that the candidate has been padding his resume, intentionally becoming involved in admin areas to prove his worth. I consider that a selling point for the candidate myself - from what I've seen, the candidate makes reasonable contributions and has a good grasp of policy. He would have been a shoe-in back when most of the admins were promoted. Thanks for volunteering. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
67. Support - I trust the nominators that this user is qualified. Plus, we definitely need more admins. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
68. Support - There is some element of creativity in the user page. In return i get to copy part of galobot's source code. Sachinthonakkara (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Almost all edits done in the last year [3] 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)

   Concur with MrX. Examples please. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 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 he hasn't contributed much to the 3rd area - just 12 speedy nominations for copyvio out of 200+). 30% of his mainspace edits are automated, 1000+ of his 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). His best created article seems to be less than 17,000 bytes, somewhere between stub and Start-class. Galobtter is a handsome editor, we've interacted multiple times but I think he'll become truly qualified in the coming years, as right now he does 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 he's likable enough for the community to accept him 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)

   I missed that part about the RfD and the copyvio areas other than CSD but still after looking for more, he seem to have about 40-50 revdel requests since last year. Flooded with them hundreds 16:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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

   Yes, I think in this day and age it's not a very big number for edits. Flooded with them hundreds 16:04, 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)

   Indeed, the criteria was created today but it reflects my view on what an editor should have for RfA. It's not made because I can easily pass it (I've created over 400 articles but set 50 in the criterion because I think that's appropriate.) They don't need to create hundreds of articles to become qualified admins although it's encouraged. I noticed many established editors have been rebuked over their block log, I don't see that as a reason to punish them by opposing their adminship, hence the block criterion. RfA voters tend to oppose for things the candidate has done years ago and I think that's very unfair, it's like giving a life-sentence to someone for stealing an apple. There wasn't a great need to bring up my criteria when I've not emphasized or discussed it at length, it was just a mention "as right now they do not meet my RfA criteria" (not really something that warrants a paragraph of response). Flooded with them hundreds 16:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   I think the point is that you created a criteria that you pass and others don't for the first RfA after your own, and it has insane requirements that even the most content heavy !voter here doesn't have, while having a massive loophole for the number of block log entries you just happen to have. You're basically saying "If I can't be an admin, no one can!" which is, of course, a ridiculous and petty argument and deserves to be highlighted. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   But I'm not saying that. Flooded with them hundreds 17:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   While the badgering of those who cast opposing votes, no matter how wrong-headed they might seem, seems often to be more disruptive than the oppose votes themselves, this one seems questionable in its good faith[4]. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 16:14, 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)
9. Oppose. I think I'm coming here from a similar place as Floquenbeam in the neutral section. I disagree with some of the other opposes above, but I have concerns about the interactions I have had with this candidate. At a recent heated content dispute within an RfC at Talk:Trypophobia (no, that is not fear of me), he posted this: [5]. You have to get into the weeds to understand what he is referring to, but his comment about some editors being "jerks" was principally directed at me. (Here is my reply: [6].) In the heat of discussion, some other editors had misread or misrepresented a comment I had made, to mean something other than what I had actually said, and he very much threw gasoline on the fire. Not the kind of demeanor I want in an administrator. I think I remember earlier, similar things like this. But if other editors can persuade me that this was an atypical one-off, I'm willing to change my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   @Tryptofish: I decided to ask a question to the candidate based on your concerns. Hopefully that should clear things up. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   I thank Kirbanzo for asking the question (Q 13), and Galobtter for the detailed explanation. Thank you also for clarifying that you did not mean to direct it at me specifically. But I'm staying in the oppose section. I don't want to debate the content issues here, but it really misses the entire point to talk about the issue in terms of someone intentionally putting an image on a page in order to trigger discomfort in readers, which is what the comment quoted from the discussion of several years ago was about (and of course no one was in favor of that). The RfC was about a long-present image, and how to treat it in terms of policy, and the better parts of the discussion were about things like WP:NOTCENSORED, the image use policy, and how WP:MEDMOS applies in terms of image use. It's a cheap shot to make it sound like the multiple editors who argued for the informational or educational value of the image were just trying to put it there or keep it visible out of careless disregard for the well-being of some readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   Oppose - despite the quality of and respect I have for all three co-nominators, my gut reaction is to oppose. I sense POV problems. I'm willing to be swayed, so I'll keep monitoring the discussion, and will look more deeply into the candidate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Decided to wait. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

10. Oppose. I'd say wait another year and try again. One small example: to redact the phrase "wild claim" (diff as referenced in Mr Ernie's question above, from a discussion now archived here) from another editor's message would be like redacting someone else's use of the term "wild pitch" in a baseball discussion. That redaction was presumptuous and an indication that this nominee is too quick to unilaterally take decisions which are best left to the collaborative process here on the encyclopedia. It would have been more appropriate to suggest that the author of that post redact it. – Athaenara ✉ 22:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Far to many issues in the oppose arguments above, such as content; too early, heavy handedness, lack of BLP understanding etc. that I agree with.Paradies (talk) 22:53, 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)
3. Reluctant neutral. Well, this stinks a bit. I’m familiar with the candidate as I have collaborated with them in the past, but there have been some concerns mentioned thus far in the discussion that I just cannot shake past. (I guess this is more of a “recuse” vote, but I’ve commented in the "General comments" section, so I'm elaborating a bit, but really do not have the desire to discuss or change my mind.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Neutral leaning oppose Galobtter does a great job following WP:NPOV in contentious areas and they have proved to be more than an asset in maintenance areas and policy talk areas. But this is a case of too soon and I feel that combined with the candidate's lack of a GA or FA or more articles I can't support at this time. I also have WP:BITE concerns JC7V (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
5. Neutral pending consideration - most of the negatives given in opposition I either reject out of hand as radically over-weighted needs (content creation for one) for an admin or are not sufficiently a concern to value. However I am interested to see how some of the oppose discussions play out to opt either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 23:38, 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)

• @Atsme: - Going off both past lookups on xtools and a spotcheck on those who participated in the last RfA, 33.4% is fairly common mainspace for experienced candidates who don't have a content focus. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, NBB - can you also provide a bit of info as to what other skill(s) the accepted candidates in that range brought to the table? I am known to change my mind in an RfA if the reasons to do so are convincing. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

---

• I just wanted to point out that I do think the redaction pointed to in Q6 was probably inappropriate, but not enough so that it sways me from support (and not part of any sort of pattern demonstrated, certainly). Moreover, the redaction was incorrect – while a case could be made for striking "wild" (but for me, not a good one; it's no worse than saying "I don't believe this person"), one can't be made for striking "claim". That changed the meaning of the statement (to something kind of ungrammatical, but still), and you kind of need to keep in mind that this is a claim and not any sort of established fact. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)