Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy

Godsy

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (60/37/4); Scheduled to end 01:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Godsy (talk · contribs) – I began contributing two years ago. I originally edited under the name Lightgodsy for a short time, before requesting and receiving a name change to Godsy. I probably made about ten to thirty anonymous edits over the years before that. I have made over fifteen thousand edits since registering, of which less than one thousand are automated. I have requested and been granted six user rights, all of which I use fairly often, and have held without incident. I would like to submit myself for community review in the hope of taking up the tasks I describe in my answer to the first question below. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I feel Godsy has the Right Stuff to be an admin, and so I putting my shoulder behind him as co-nominator to help move him forward. In doing this I take responsibility for his actions during his first year as admin, and will provide him with assistance and advice as needed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:23, 29 November 2016 (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 veiw adminship as a grant by the community of the tools necessary to carry out their will. That will is expressed through consensus which is determined by discussion on an individual issue or an existing policy or guideline. It is not a grant of extra status, weight in discussions, or special privileges beyond what is necessary to technically use the expanded set of rights. Process is important. Any action taken per ignore all rules which proves controversial should generally be reverted until the community decides whether or not to implement it. All that being said: I participate at redirects for discussion and miscellany for deletion regularly, and would like to close discussions there when the consensus dictates an action (generally deletion) that requires the administrator toolset. I am also interested in restoring pages for review and closing discussions that require the administrator tools at deletion review. Much more cautiously with the latter, as I have much less experience there. I would continue to answer file renaming requests, template-protected edit requests, and requested technical moves, as I already do with the advanced permissions I have been granted, while adding fully-protected edit requests to that list. I have a good grasp of the criteria for speedy deletion, especially G, R, U, T, and X, and would perform deletions based on them when applicable. That aside, I would like to work in the following areas to a lesser extent: I would add my name to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles, while also considering requests and implementing reasonable ones at requests for undeletion on occasion. I would do the same at requests for page protection and requests for permission. Lastly, I have a basic understanding of history merges, though I would only dip my toe into that pond, at least at first.

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

A: The readers are the reason this encyclopedia exists, so anything I have done that benefits them the most. I have written seven articles. I do a lot of work with redirects; others who do similar work characterize it as being a "navigational gnome". I also perform tasks for those who lack the ability, such as at CAT:RENAME, WP:TPER, WP:RM/TR, and WP:AFC/R. I find encyclopedia maintenance work and other things that lead me to subjects that I would never otherwise gain any knowledge about enjoyable. I help out at third opinion, a leg of dispute resolution, from time to time. I recently created a template that aids relisting discussions at miscellany for deletion. I created a userbox a while back, which had been requested at the talk page of a WikiProject I participate in, that is now displayed by approximately ten editors. I drafted and proposed the redirect suppression criteria a few months ago.

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: When I was fairly new to editing I was accused of being a sockpuppet. The claim was baseless, and found to be so. However, it was stressful, especially because I was new and did not really understand that process at the time. The only other major disagreement I have had was when a user was, among other things, moving drafts within the userspace of other users to the mainspace and immediately nominating them for deletion. Pages should not be moved in that manner unless one believes they meet the core content and notability policies. I silently observed the sockpuppetry investigation, and it sorted itself out. The community disapproved of the practices engaged in by the user that I had the second disagreement with. Disputes are adequately handled by discussion on talk pages along with the use of other processes the community has established. Fairly interpreted community consensus satiates me, whether or not my opinion prevails in the end.

---

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 Lourdes

4. Hello. Your edits have a considerable and perhaps unreasonable number of self-reverts on a regular and continuing basis.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] On one hand, while it shows an openness to undo one's own edits, on the other hand, it shows significant errors in handling changes. My first question, leading from this is, what confidence can you provide editors here that you will not make errors (for example, mistaken blocks at the click of a button) and multiple self-reverts (analogically, multiple self-undos of blocks) if you are handed the admin bit?

A: Firstly, I'll provide additional information on some of those examples. I chose to restore the definition of a a recently removed reference instead of removing an empty call to it as I had in example 2, and it was easier to tell where the reference had been by taking that action. From a look at one of my edit summaries in example 3, I "remove[d the] template to test something", then restored it. Example 4, 10, 11, and 12 had to do with a semi-complicated category situation that I ran into which is described at User talk:Godsy#Historical establishments in Kazak(h) ASSR. I cleaned up a pending edit in example 5, only to have it declined while I was doing so, which I took no issue with. Example 8 was a file within a group of files bearing meaningless names that I was tagging for renaming which I accidently tagged as well. That aside, I will make mistakes, that's inevitable. However, I take extra care when editing using special permissions (such as the template editor user right). I would do the same thing with the administrator toolset, especially in the more sensitive areas like the one you mention.

Additional question from Lourdes

5. Please explain your edit summary in this diff. Thanks

A: It is taken verbatim from the page's edit notice which itself is a transclusion of Template:DOY page notice. In other words, a subject without an article should not have their birth or death listed within that type of article (i.e. a day of the year article).

Additional question from Chris troutman

6. Many of the articles you've created were deleted (some at your own request) or are disambiguation pages or stubs. Why didn't you complete more substantial artcle contributions before asking for a mop?

A: None of the deleted pages listed at pages created were articles, they were redirects (or at least intended to be) in all but one case. I felt my contributions to the article namespace were adequate enough to request the mop when my edits to the other namespaces are taken into account along with them.

Additional question from Chris troutman

7. I note that not only are you a self-nom, you also didn't use WP:ORCP. Why?

A: I chose to nominate myself firstly because there are a handful of administrators I might have approached for a nomination that I did not want to have to choose between, and secondly because doing so guarantees their knowledge of and support at your RfA if they choose to grant your request. I find a self-nomination to be more pure in the sense that it lacks any extra canvassing. The optional polling process serves as a good place for users to gauge what the community thinks of their chance of success, and some people like it, but it doesn't necessarily reflect how an actual RfA will turn out. I understand why polls are useful, but I have never personally cared for them.

Additional question from Innisfree987

8. Could you comment on your contributions to the Caitlyn Jenner talk page, particularly topic #5 on that archived page? I realize the discussion is now a year and a half old so I don't want to assume it's still necessarily representative, whether of your views on that specific case or your sense of HARM policy more generally. Have either changed since then, and if yes, in what ways? Thanks.

A: A careful balance needs to be maintained between respecting how individuals identify and not censoring or revising. In regard to that specific discussion, a good case was made to leave that particular piece of information out. I adhere to MOS:IDENTITY, MOS:GENDERID, and WP:BLP (whether or not I personally agree with them all in their entirety).

Additional question from Ritchie333

9. A brand new user creates an article. Its content, in its entirety, is : "The Eyre estate is in north London" without any sources. What action, if any, would you take?

A: I'm presuming the page title is appropriate, it isn't the recreation of a page with substantially the same content as was deleted per a deletion discussion, it doesn't duplicate an existing topic, there aren't multiple potentially notable estates named that in north London, and the user is brand new. The first thing I would do is either add an {{unreferenced}} tag or search for and add a source myself. If the subject appeared to be notable: As a participant of WP:DEADEND, I'm always inclined to add links if appropriate. I would also add it to any subcategories of London or other categories that were applicable, along with whichever was more appropriate between {{London-geo-stub}} or {{London-struct-stub}}. If the subject did not appear notable: I would add a {{notability}} tag and consider putting it up for proposed deletion. If I proceeded with that, a notice of the proposed deletion would be left on the talk page of the new user, along with a welcome message if they had not already received one.

@Ritchie333: I would like to clarify something in regard to your comment "searching through existing articles and ... a Google search". I would do a Google search and it was my intent to imply that by stating "search for and add a source myself" It also wouldn't be uncommon for me to run it through our local search engine, which I constantly do with redirects listed at RfD. I would take steps to determine if the subject was notable before seeking its deletion, which again, it was my intention to imply. I think I took the question more generally (i.e. talking about a stub of that nature rather than honing in on the example) than you wanted, and I apologize if that is the case. Anyhow, thank you for the question and your participation here.

I've asked this question quite a lot at various RfAs, and what I've found is the people who instinctively do the search then and there and post the results without being explicitly prompted for them (eg: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fenix down Q16, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jakec Q18, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz Q12) are the people that can put themselves in the shoes of an editor who's just had their work deleted or reverted and talk to them with a sympathetic ear and not just parrot off the stereotypical laundry list of policy violations. You could have asked for clarification about what the question meant, I might have even given you a hint of "search through previous RfAs where I have asked this question" but you went straight for the jugular of {{unreferenced}} and PROD without a solid explanation. Ouch! It's really not designed to be a trick question, and I am sorry if you thought it was. In any case, perhaps everyone else will disagree with me and this RfA will pass, in which case I am hopeful the experience here will stick in the back of your mind as you wield your mop and bucket. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Miniapolis

10. Thanks for standing for adminship. Last March, you created an article about a racist slur with AFC. Since AFC is intended to help new users, why did you go that route instead of creating the article directly?

A: I wanted a second opinion about whether or not the content of that article was suitable for the encyclopedia given the sensitive nature of the topic and the limited availability of sourcing to me. Specifically, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and though I thought I had enough content beyond that, I thought more input couldn't hurt.

Additional question from UNSC Luke 1021

11: Uploading images is a key part of maintaining WikiPedia's standards. Without pictures we wouldn't have any clue what we were looking at! How many images have you uploaded, how many are still up today and how many were taken down and for what reasons?

A: I've uploaded seven files. I've only had one file deleted per my own request. I intended to use it for a topicon or userbox, but decided against it (its quality wasn't good). Of two of the other images, one was for a topicon and one for a userbox. Three images were from the Jewish Encyclopedia which is in the public domain. Last but not least, File:National flag carried by the 2nd Iowa Infantry throughout the Civil War.jpg. A user requested a free use image of that civil war flag. I realized that I would be in a position fairly soon that would put me close to where the flag is stored, so I decided to make the short trip there to photograph it.

Additional question from Ottawahitech

12. Can an article about a notable subject be deleted if it is deemd to have No indication of importance (A7)?

A: No. It is a lower standard than notability, so if there is enough information to discern something is a notable subject, then that itself is the assertion of a credible claim of significance. However, the article text may be inappropriate in some other manner, e.g. patent nonsense (G1), no content (A3), etc.

Additional Question from UNSC Luke 1021

13: Me again. What WikiProjects are you a part of, and how would you help WikiProjects overall, especially smaller, less popular ones that could contribute a decent amount to WikiPedia? I'm referring to WikiProjects about US States, smaller military topics, video games, etc.

A: I do not tend to edit based on interest in specific topic areas, rather I contribute to a diverse range of things that happen to come to my attention, so I am not really involved with the type of WikiProjects you are referring to. However, I am an active participant of Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect. I also participate in Wikipedia:Dead-end pages which is similar to a WikiProject. I created a userbox, Template:Userbox Dead-end pages, for dead end pages, which will hopefully help attract more participation.

Additional question from Optimist on the run

14. Under what circumstances would you consider editing the main page: a) directly, and b) indirectly via one of the transcluded templates? What precautions would you take when doing so?

A: I would edit the main page directly if there was community consensus to implement changes that I clearly understood and felt I could implement without error. I haven't had much involvement with in the news, did you know, on this day, or the featured content, though I have had some limited involvement with the first two. I would feel semi-comfortable editing one of the transcluded templates if it had a glaring typo or other error that I am sure is a mistake, though I'd still mention it at the appropriate venue (i.e. Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors). I would be extremely careful, and take the same precautions I do when editing as a template editor. Wikipedia:Template editor#Use does a particularly good job of describing the precautions that should be taken along with the reasons they are important.

Additional question from RileyBugz

15. How would you help fix mistakes that new editors have made?

A: It would vary greatly depending on the circumstance. There are many things users can do to that end both with and without the administrator toolset. I can point you to User talk:Godsy/Archive/2015#WPW for a semi-complicated example of something I have done along those lines in the past. The user who made the mistakes that I helped clean up expressed their gratitude at User talk:Godsy/Archive/2015#Thanks (The Minor Barnstar).

Follow-up question from Optimist on the run

16. At WP:ERRORS, a concern is raised that the picture used for TFA may be a copyvio. The picture is a locally stored copy of a file on Commons, where a deletion debate has just started, and so far opinion seems divided. In the FA article in question on Wikipedia, the image has been replaced with a suitable alternative (hosted on Commons), and the WP:ERRORS request is to replace the image on the main page accordingly. Another editor agrees that this is the best solution. If you chose to answer the concern, what would you do?

A: If the image being suggested is clearly free use and now present in the article, while the other is under a cloud of questionable copyright status and no longer present in the article, I think it is reasonable to implement the new image per consensus at WP:ERRORS. However, this is outside my area of expertise, and I know their are active administrators who specialize in that sort of thing, so I probably wouldn't handle the matter.

Additional question from BU Rob13

17. I want to give you a chance to respond to what I consider to be the most substantial concern raised in the oppose section. SMcCandlish brought up a series of two discussions where you appear to have relitigated the issue of a template deprecation by bringing it to VPP after it was already decided in an RfC on an MoS talk page. Broadly, where do you believe the line lies between seeking wider community consensus and forum-shopping? More specifically, why did you feel the need to re-raise a very specific issue settled by a properly-advertised RfC at a venue usually reserved for large-scale proposals relating to project governance? Would you do the same thing if you found a similar closed discussion today?

A: Thanks Rob. The original discussion was Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Sub-national varieties of English?. I had no knowledge of it at the time it took place. I then participated in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9#Template:American English because I noticed the {{Template for discussion}} banner which appears on all transclusions of the template advertising the discussion. Another user there asked a question after some discussion had taken place "Can anyone show me the discussion that deprecated these?", so I looked into it, found the original discussion, and posted a link to it. I thought it had low participation with only four users supporting it. It wasn't held at templates for discussion where the discussion would have been visible to anyone that came across one of the templates, and none of the templates talk pages were not notified of it (e.g. Template talk:English variant notice, Template talk:American English, and Template talk:British English). The aforementioned other user expressed disagreement the deprecation of the templates, but noted the discussion had already been archived (never formally closed), so I offered to start a discussion on the matter, and did at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 126#RfC: Should Template:English variant notice be deprecated?. I made sure to word it neutrally and notified everyone who participated in the prior discussion along with Template talk:English variant notice. I still agree with the comments I made at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 126#Propriety of this RfC, with two concessions: I think TfD would have been a better choice of venue of my part, and I mistated there that the original discussion wasn't an RfC. I don't think WT:MOS was a good choice of venue for the first discussion, in retrospect preferring WP:TFD or Template talk:English variant notice. I feel that four support !votes having the effect of deprecating templates that appear on 10,000+ pages, especially outside of TfD which properly advertises with "banners" on each translcusion of the template itself, and without even posting notifications on the talk pages of the affected templates, is inappropriate. I view the whole matter as more of a disagreement on the appropriate venue, rather than a forum shopping issue. I think the deprecation should have been argued at TfD. That aside, though I disagree with SMcCandlish on this issue, I appreciated the nice things they had to say in portions of their oppose. Now that the specifics are out of the way, I'll address the broader part of your question. Forum shopping occurs when an issue is raised appropriate forum, someone gets an answer they don't agree with, and takes it elsewhere. It may also contain non-neutral language and non-neutral notifications. I did not engage in any of that, but rather, I believe the actions I've described above show validly seeking wider community consensus. Lastly, would I do the same thing if I came across the same circumstances today? I would, except I'd choose TfD as the forum.

Additional question from Nsk92

18. The Articles created tool lists 23 articles you created; of them 10 have been deleted, most others are disambiguation pages, plus a couple of stubs like Grease fire, one nice C-class article, Noah's wine and one short DYK article, Adam's ale (unrated, but probably start-class). Could you comment in more detail on your content work? Could you give any specific examples of articles that you substantially expanded and/or improved? Have you thought about doing more article-writing?

A: None of the deleted pages listed at pages created were articles, they were redirects (or at least intended to be) in all but one case. That aside, a lot of my major content work stems from redirects for discussion as Tavix describes below in regard to Adam's ale. Noah's wine was split off from that. Confiture was the result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 5#Confiture. Someone said to me one day that they had known the person who invented plastic eyeglass lenses. I was dubious of that claim, and Columbia-Southern Chemical Corporation was born from my fruitless investigation of the matter. I would have created and written defeat device, but someone beat me to the punch, so I added the information I had gathered about the subject there. When I was fairly new to Wikipedia, I cleaned up and expanded Good faith and Cutex. I have also wikified a lot of content through my work at WP:DEP. Yes, I have thought about doing more article writing. Thus far, I've done so when a good topic comes to my attention that isn't already adequately covered, I'm at least semi-interested in, and good sourcing can be found freely available online.

Additional question from Banedon

19. What is this Legacypac issue some of the oppose votes (as of time of writing) are referring to?

A: Legacypac was moving drafts that clearly failed the core content and notability policies residing within the userspace of other users to the article namespace. A page should not be moved from the userspace of another user to the article namespace unless it is suitable for it. I reverted about 12 moves that they made. Legacypac also subsequently nominated some of the pages for deletion immediately after moving them, once stating in their move summary "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying". The standards for a page residing in the userspace versus the article namespace are vastly different, hence miscellany for deletion and articles for deletion evaluate content differently, so it is not appropriate to move a page from one namespace to another expressly to nominate it for deletion. Some of the pages they moved inappropriately were also speedily deleted and deleted by proposed deletion. I challenged some of these out of process deletions at the appropriate forums and most of them were restored. Legacypac started an administrators' noticeboard incidents thread on the matter as a whole, which almost boomeranged on them, but ended with no action. In the end, the community strongly disapproved of the practices employed by Legacypac, though they were blocked for another matter. They did not return to editing after their block expired until yesterday.

20. Is this the discussion in question the various editors are referring to? [17] Can I get a good sense of the dispute from this, or is there any other thread to look at?

A: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#MfD end run GAME, User talk:Godsy#Discussions with a user about moving content from a userspace other…, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System shed some light on the complicated matter.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support While his somewhat low percent of mainspace edits had me concerned, the rest of his contribs more than makes up for it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
2. Support as my default position. I've seen Godsy around the project and they've struck me as a net positive. The answer to #1 is particularly strong. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   I have some concerns about the forum-shopping issue, but for now, I intend to remain in the supports. I'm entirely unimpressed with the opposes that cite only the self-nomination. Godsy obviously could have obtained a nomination, but there's no obligation for an editor to do so. Frankly, it's fairly brave to weather the RfA process without relying on the reputation of a nominator. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

3. Strong support. Godsy and I are both regulars at RFD and I've always been impressed by his contributions. If I remember right, my first interaction with Godsy came after I nominated what I thought was an obscure euphemism for water at RFD, and Godsy turned it into an impressive article. I had actually thought about offering to nominate him for adminship just the other day, but he beat me to the punch before I got around to it. RFD sure could use another admin keeping an eye on the discussions, and Godsy is a perfect candidate to do just that. Good luck! -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
4. Support No obvious problems, undoubtedly ready for adminship. Joshualouie711 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
5. Weak support. (Moved from "Neutral".) Yeah, I can't let a slight questionable incident where Godsy was obviously going through the correct channel to discuss the issue prevent me from supporting the obvious net positive they are to Wikipedia. Park me here. Steel1943 (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   (Moving back to "Neutral".) Steel1943 (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   ...And now I'm back here since I feel the need to move my comment to the "Support" section just to counteract some of these opposes I don't agree with. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

6. Support – I have frequently appreciated Godsy's input to community discussions all throughout the project. There is nothing I can find that would cause me to doubt that he would be anything other than an asset to this project as an administrator. Mz7 (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
7. Support - I was initially skeptical as I haven't had much interaction with Godsy. After a thorough review of his talk page (including archives) and a random sampling of his contribs along with his xtools/supercount reports, I feel comfortable in supporting him for adminship. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
8. Support. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
9. Support. Candidate will do fine and be of benefit to the project with the tools. Opposing based on self-nomination without regard to the candidate at hand is unnecessarily bureaucratic at best. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   Just noting for the record that I find many of the opposes to be spectacularly unpersuasive, and I remain unconvinced that the user would perform poorly with the tools. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

10. Support clearly a net positive. He will be able to help out with the tools. No red flags.Tazerdadog (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
11. Absolutely. — foxj 04:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
12. Support per the rationale put forward by User:Tavix. bd2412 T 04:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
13. Support clearly a WP:NETPOSITIVE. The self-nom doesn't concern me. Omni Flames (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
14. Support - I have some doubts from past interactions with the candidate, but really adminship isn't a big deal, and none of my concerns are related to how they would use the specific rights they are applying for. I also appreciate the self-nomination; while they tend to be discouraged on enwiki, I've always self-nominated for wiki roles myself. I think it makes sense, as these are not a big deal and basically just you volunteering to take on some extra work, that you are the best judge of when you would like to take on said extra work. Thanks for volunteering, and I'm sure that if elected you'll do a fine job. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
15. Support to counteract the ridiculous idea that self noms should always be opposed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
16. Support -Good candidate here, and the self nom doesn't concern me at all. Class455 (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
17. Support to balance out BMK's ridiculous oppose. BethNaught (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
18. Support- ridiculous first oppose needs cancelling out. Reyk _YO! 08:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
19. Support Nick (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
20. Support → Call me Razr Nation 09:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
21. Support because I think giving him the tools will be a net positive to the project. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
22. Support per Ajraddatz. lNeverCry 10:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
23. Support. Self noms are usually a sign that an editor has the trust of at least one, if not more, other editors to the point that those editors feel they should put forward a nomination. This is a good thing. However, it should not preclude a sufficiently experienced editor in good standing having the confidence (if not the courage) to run the gamut that is RfA. Blackmane (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
24. Support. likely net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
25. Candidate has been here more than long enough to show commitment and learn how things work. Clean block log, civil interactions, has created content with inline citations, and kudos for a self nom - good move in sidestepping ORCP, that is turning out an overcautious venue and a deterrent to good candidates. ϢereSpielChequers 12:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
26. Somewhat surprised that this RfA has so little support compared to that other RfA. Editors claiming that RfA is a popularity contest are not wrong. Good contributions at RfD. SSTflyer 13:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
27. Support great work at RFD, clean block log , good content Atlantic306 (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
28. Support Seems likely to be a net positive to the encyclopedia. He's made some mistakes, sure, but so have we all. I'm confident he'll make a good administrator. BMK's oppose is, frankly, as ridiculous as it was in 2007 when Kmweber did it, and will likely meet the same result in time. I'm confident the closing crat will give it exactly the weight it deserves. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
29. Support. User does great work at WP:RFD, which always needs more admins to watch over it, and although I don't always agree with their arguments, they are always reasonable, sound, and policy-based. I will echo Tavix and say that if Godsy had asked me, I would likely have served as a (co-)nominator. I am confident that if given the mop, Godsy would take the reasonable criticisms of opposers to heart. I think SMcCandlish's oppose is more over a good-faith, policy-based disagreement than over any real disqualifier for the adminship. It's an instance in which Godsy disagreed with the result of a less trafficked discussion and held a more-trafficked RFC where the consensus was to overturn the previous discussion. Maybe it's suboptimal to have repeated discussions, but the second discussion shows that if the first had received more attention, the result likely would not have been the same. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
30. Support. I've seen Godsy around in deletion forums a bit. I think he's been around for long enough and has a good spread of contributions. The answers look good and I don't share the concerns in the oppose opinions below - I think his answer to Q4 is fair enough. A self-corrected mistake shouldn't count against an editor. Deryck C. 18:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
31. Support Not a perfect candidate (see first half of SMcCandlish's oppose) but I still expect that sysoping Godsy will be a net positive. By the way, I disagree with the rest of SMcCandlish's oppose. Self-nominations are perfectly ok and mentionning one's userrights provides relevant info. Opposing systematically based on one of these criteria just hurts the project by discarding otherwise reasonable candidates. And on the topic of unreasonable reasons to oppose, setting a minimum of five years reduces the pool of potential candidates to an unsustainable level. Pichpich (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
32. Support RFD is an area desperately in need of new admins. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
33. Support user is clueful and I have no serious concerns. Two years is more than enough experience. Lepricavark (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
34. Support I haven't found anything wrong with Godsy, and I like the way he words his sentences, implying good communication, a good quality for an admin. I've done some spotchecking on his edits in non-mainspaces, and I haven't seen any of the battleground mentalities mentioned in the oppose section. In particular, I think that specific error diffs mentioned in the oppose section show a good light on Godsy's temperament. Good luck on the RfA! Icebob99 (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
35. Support Seems to be a well intentioned, well informed, and even-keeled editor.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
36. Support regular at RfD like I am, and I respect his contributions like those of the admin regs. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
37. Support. I have had the opportunity to interact with Godsy at WP:RFD, where I can always count on them to offer insightful and thoughtful comments. I trust that Godsy will make a fine Administrator. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
38. (edit conflict)Support Time for me to get off the fence. I was somewhat concerned about hat-collecting, and am no stickler for content creation but would rather see more mainspace edits (including article talk pages) and fewer in the "back room" (WP namespace), but I see the candidate as a net positive. The help at RfD is appreciated, and I think you'll grow into the rest of the job. Miniapolis 00:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
39. Support You could call it moral support, weak support, or something like that, but I do want it counted as a full support. There are some valid concerns that have been raised here, and I hope Godsy will take them to heart. But I have no doubt Godsy is a net positive to the project, and some of the oppose votes seem quite frivolous. I'd be happy to have Godsy working alongside me at RfD. --BDD (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
40. Support. Seems to have a level head and a willingness to seek consensus. He argues for his point of view, but I don't see a battleground mentality. He's not perfect, but I think a number of the opposes are engaging in excessive creeping of admin standards. In particular, I view a willingness to self-nom as quite bold, in the spirit of Wikipedia.--Mojo Hand (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
41. Support We need more admins, and Godsy is a trustworthy candidate for the job. Full Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 03:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
42. Support He's willing to perform a variety of administrative tasks. Good luck!– Gilliam (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
43. Support Trustworthy, experienced and willing to work. Bradv 03:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
44. Strong Support The candidate shows strong experience, thoughtful contribution, and calm in the face of conflict. I have never worked with this editor before, but after thorough examination of his work and his behavior, I am impressed. If he can use the tools further improve his contributions to Wikipedia, then I say we grant them. In addition to my support, he has my commendation. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
45. Support. After reviewing the candidate (and the oppose !votes), their adminship seems like a gain for the project. Killiondude (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
46. Support, albeit weakly. I couldn't place where I'd seen Godsy's name before, until the Legacypac/stale drafts/MfD battles from a few months ago came up. I do think some of Godsy's decisions in that dispute were poorly thought through, and reflected a willingness to fall back on process-wonkery to get his way. On the other hand, other participants in that dispute behaved much worse, in ways that make process-wonkery seem like a fair defense. On balance I'd just encourage him to tread very softly and take cues from more experienced admins when "process" issues come up, especially when someone is accused of not following the right process/filing the right paperwork/putting the right covers on the TPS reports. Admins should have a flexible mindset about these things.

    All that being said, while I think there are good reasons to be cautious here, the oppose section of this RfA is cringe-inducing. One of the things we need most on this project is good critical thinking skills, and if your reason for opposition isn't grounded in evidence or specific to this candidate, then it's a bad reason. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    What exactly is "cringe-inducing" about my view, particularly since it's no different to numerous other RfAs where I've said the same thing, and since I also said "In any case, perhaps everyone else will disagree with me and this RfA will pass"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    Well, I should have said "much of the oppose section", or maybe "there's so much muck down there that it's hard to find the good stuff" ;) But as long as we're here, I think your "deal breaker" is picky. It's like those exercises where you ask people to write step-by-step instructions for making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and then you ding them for poor process documentation when they say "spread the jelly on one slice of bread" but fail to specify "using a butter knife". Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    I left the edit window open while making tea. Actual input from cat: K,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,CDB

    I think the core of it is simply "can we just put policy to one side for a minute and talk about the content?" Taking this on board, I am going to use common sense and decide you did not deliberately give your cat access to an admin account in order to replace the main page with a picture of a dead mouse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

47. I can't find any reason not to support. Some of the comments in the oppose section are among the least valid I've seen on any RfA. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    Support per MSGJ. An all around type of editor. BlackJackPlayer (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    Strike sock. Patient Zero^talk 13:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

48. Support - I am seeing a level headed and intelligent and knowledgeable user. I am waiting for SMcCandlish's explanation of why he feels what I see to be appropriate behaviour in opening up a discussion to the community to ensure proper consensus is forum shopping, and so may change my mind. But after studying that and the other incidents closely, I am satisfied that Godsy has the Right Stuff. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
49. Support the self-nom bit is a plus in my opinion. He has an interesting history but one that is not too troubling. There are current admins who I am more wary off so I am not too worried with giving him the mop. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
50. Support. I think I belong here. The candidate has a very different focus from me, and with all those small edits and self-reverts, a very different editing pattern. Two years' tenure is on the low end for admin candidates these days, but the number of edits is acceptable, I have no objection to self-noms (I was a reluctant candidate, myself), and in my view the candidate makes a good case: demonstrated need for the mop, a well phrased exposition of their philosophy of adminship, and they touch on their previously granted rights as part of explaining why they see themselves as qualified. I don't share SMMcCandlish's view of the discussions regarding templates. Concerning Ritchie333's question, I share the concern, but the candidate did present looking for sources as the other thing they would probably do. I would however caution the candidate, if successful, to take on board the criticisms here concerning modes of engagement in case of disagreement. It's fine to be a policy wonk, and it's good to be an expert in templates and the venues in which they are discussed, but the candidate's heavy use of links and in-house abbrevs. may be very offputting to a newbie, and it's important to realize that many editors are here just to write, or to work in their particular area, and to be ready both to listen and to put things in a simpler way. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
51. Support Per BU Rob13's and The Wordsmith's comments. He will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
52. Support While I do not think the newly added co-nomination statement is strong, I respect SilkTork’s offer for helping. Given the nature of the mop, I imagine that mentorship, in some form, is inevitable for every new admin regardless of prior experience with Wikipedia as a whole. In addition, I like the answers to the questions, especially Q1, and I appreciate that Godsy wants to focus in specific areas of familiarity. ZettaComposer (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
53. Attention-seekers in the oppose section are particularly laughable this time around. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    Are you going to give an actual reason to support this candidate or just ridicule those opposing who have actual concerns? Because if not I suggest this statement be struck. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    Posting my signature in the "support" section means I endorse the nomination statements and see no reason to oppose the candidate's request for the tools. That's how it's always been. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

54. This is more of a moral support than a strong endorsement, but I am troubled by some aspects of how editors are treating this RfA. First, I do want to acknowledge that there are multiple opposes that are thoughtful and substantive, and they do indeed raise valid issues. But automatically opposing based on a self-nom? Or requiring 5 years of experience? Or requiring participation in a given number of WikiProjects? Some of these opposes veer so far into self-parody that I feel obliged to push back. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
55. Support per Opabinia regalis. The issues raised aren't serious enough for me to worry that Godsy would misuse the mop. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 01:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
56. Support. No brainer – it's well-known that whenever we try to make the hard decisions, there will be enemies made. Godsy will make an excellent admin, no contest!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 02:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
57. Support - If there was ever an RFA to point out all the flaws in the current RFA atmosphere... I think Jesus Christ Himself would garner more than a few opposes were He to run for RFA today (not enough time on Earth, just trying to gain the hat of "Saviour", simply avoided conflicts instead of resolving them...). In all seriousness, I think that giving him the mop will be a net gain to the project, and while I don't discount the opposes that actually spell out an actual concern about the candidate's behaviour or competence, I do not think they outweigh the positives that Godsy can contribute with the mop. (I do discount the 'I won't support any self-noms, period' or 'must meet this given arbitrary standard, period' !votes because that's entirely process-oriented instead of the results-oriented environment that Wikipedia aspires to be, with policies like WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY) PGWG (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
58. Support - I'm just not convinced by the oppose votes. In the case cited by SMcCandish, Godsy acted with noble intentions and even explained it upfront in the RfC question. I don't perceive self-reverting as a big deal, or not using "show preview", etc. Most concerning was the Legacypac issue, which from what I have seen would almost certainly have resulted in warnings for both parties if it had gone to Arbcom. But while it's ideal if an editor can just step aside and let the other guy have his way while the dispute is hashed out, I can also understand if an editor takes a stand to defend his or her position during dispute resolution. Importantly, Godsy was quite civil in all of the dispute that I've read. At worst he sounded frustrated, but he certainly wasn't rude.

    That leaves some really bad reasons to oppose. Some of those reasons are so bad that I empathize with others who've supported just to "counterbalance" the oppose vote. With no strong reason to oppose, I default to supporting, and so am parking myself here. Banedon (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

59. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 09:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
60. Support: I think we need such energetic Admins. I don't see any problems with his/her background. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As a matter of personal policy, I oppose all self-nominations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   That's ridiculous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   +1Tazerdadog (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   Is there any particular rationale behind this personal policy, or is it merely arbitrary? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   Yes, there is a method to my madness. This is a pretty small community. Anyone who wants to become an admin who has the necessary goods should have no trouble in finding a sponsor to nominate them. The reputation of the nominator(s) is something of a fail-safe, and, indeed, the reputation of the nominator(s) often plays a part in support votes. I myself have voted "support" for someone I was slightly unsure of, and my vote was based on the word and reputation of the nom(s), so I don't see why that should be acceptable but this would raise eyebrows. In any case, well, I'm not asking anyone else to follow it, it's my personal policy, and that's the end of it. (Sorry, Brad, I respect you immensely, but this is far from "ridiculous".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   Thank you for explaining, even if I don't share your concern in this instance. =) Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Way too much of a controversial vote, will keep attracting comments that will derail the entire effort. In any case, crats use their discretion on which votes to disregard and which to not. QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

2. Too incautious and get-my-way, for my comfort level. I'm often in agreement with Godsy, who does useful internal work like informally clerking at some XfDs, in addition to content work, and who often says intelligent and insightful things about how WP works at the content-policy level (e.g., his post in this thread and many like it elsewhere, frequently at WP:VPPOL. However, some incidents give me pause, because they indicate a reckless my-way-or-the-highway approach.

   See, for example, this discussion, about Godsy usurping a guideline shortcut, without discussion, to point to a proposal. As another example, he derailed an already-concluded RfC the outcome of which he didn't like by forum-shopping it to another venue, badly misrepresenting the nature, intent, and outcome of the original discussion, and in turn thwarting further pending template cleanup work (see discussion here versus the original here). Due to Godsy's water-muddying and sabre-rattling, the problems remain unresolved still, to this very month [18]. Among his explicit rationales for this "asking the other parent" move were that the original discussion had closed and he didn't get to participate, and because he wanted to prevent a related pending discussion (at TfD) from proceeding. I cannot honestly distinguish this behavior from "this must be discussed with my people on my turf". And it was over a matter in which Godsy has no history of involvement to begin with (as far as I can find, anyway), and about which he was clearly confused.

   Sorry, but this does not inspire admin-level confidence. It is not Godsy's job to relitigate decisions he doesn't like by mischaracterizing them and trying to round up more opponents of the result (especially when further discussion, at the appropriate venue, was already scheduled). Nor is it Godsy's job to drive traffic to proposals by misdirecting people away from WP:P&G pages. The breadth of the judgement lapses is impressive (in the negative sense).

   While I don't have some kind of "personal policy" against self-noms, I have to wonder how any candidate for RfA could possibly be unaware that many respondents here take a dim view of both self-nomination and (even more so) of stressing how many hats one has collected. It shows a lack of wisdom, in particular "community politics" understanding; it would have been very easy to ask someone to nominate and to avoid dwelling on one's user-right bits. Mostly I'm impressed by what Godsy has done in two short years, as an editor, but he's just not there yet, as an admin-hopeful. He does have a more chill temperament than many candidates (and than me). But I would like to see a more moderate approach between these "I'll just randomly do something without thinking through its effects" and "I'm going to mire this in bureaucracy until I get what I want" opposite-extreme failures to properly internalize WP:Process is important, that I highlighted in my examples.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   Followup: As the Q&A section has expanded, too many of the answers seem to me to be roundabout ways of just saying "That's how I roll." They're mostly not very substantive, aside from a couple of technical ones.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose. I think my main hesitation is that the candidate, by and large, doesn't seem to be involved in counter-vandalism. And while I could be fine with that, I think participation in AIV and RfPP - and strong participation in CSD - are especially important when CSD and RfPP are listed as areas they intend to work in. I appreciate the candidate's caution in Q1 toward approaching these areas. However, seeing too many editors - even admins - failing to exercise proper correct knowledge of CSD in practice makes me hesitant to support a candidate who will work in CSD when I haven't seen enough evidence to be convinced they have that knowledge. I also looked through their created articles and was pleased with what I saw, but as I've said in other RfA's, I would also like to see a little more work in content creation. I'm satisfied by the answer to Q4 and I'm not concerned about the self-nomination, but I would like to see more work in CSD, a little exposure in AIV or RfPP, and continued work in AfD (and I did see that the candidate does make good arguments there) before I could support.--Slon02 (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose I'm not impressed by Godsy's feud with Legacypac which ended only after Legacypac's block (without a return). They were easily provoked.--v/r - TP 06:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose - some well thought-out opposes from editors I respect + only 2 years of editing = too soon for me, sorry. GiantSnowman 09:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose per SMcCandlish. I personally have no issue with the self-nomination, but I do have an issue with his history of battleground behaviour. Patient Zero^talk 10:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I hardly ever vote oppose in an RfA but now I feel I have to for a number of reasons: 1) I think, in this case, two years of editing isn't enough. 2) The answer to Q4. Instead of reassuring Lourdes, Godsy starts defending his diffs at great length and then answers the main (and far more important) question with not much more than "I take extra care". 3) SMcCandlish's arguments above. 4) Looking at the edit history I find Godsy a bit too 'trigger happy' to be an admin. Too many self-reverts, too many edits to edits to already saved messages, too much slapping on of templates without even starting to fix the problem that caused the need for the template in the first place. Fine for an editor but not for a wanna-be admin. Sorry. Yintan  12:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose - Reading the answers here they seem more of a BATTLEGROUND mentality if that makes sense ... They all just seem extremely defensive, Anyway that aside they've not participated in AIV/UFAA nor AFDs (They participate in RFD which is great but I prefer editors to work in AFD too), I'll be completely honest I'm not really seeing any need for the tools right now. –Davey2010^Talk 13:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
9. Oppose - for all the reasons stated above, especially those presented by SMcCandish. Godsy's answer to Lourdes' first question concerns me, especially the part where they removed a template to test something; we all know that mainspace isn't the place to test things, even if you intend to self-revert, which is why I do as much of my testing as possible in a sandbox. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
10. Oppose The candidate borderline fails my criteria. While they constructed some well-thought answers to questions, the answers themselves are less than satisfactory. I'm confident that Godsy can fail this RfA and learn some lessons and pass in five years. I'm just not convinced they ought to be an admin now. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Five years?!? No wonder we have an admin shortage with these ridiculous criteria. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Five years is kind of a high bar to set just to be able to run for RFA. Steel1943 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Even I was thinking something like 12–18 months.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
11. Oppose. I am concerned about the self-nomination and I would like to see more work in CSD before I would feel comfortable with this candidate. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
12. Oppose - the self nomination and bypassing of the poll is not in itself a problem, except that by not getting a second pair of eyes on your answers, it meant I had to go through a sentence full of politican-talk before I got to the substance of what you wanted the tools for. However, it shows you have initiative and determination to get things done, which I like. The disputes with Legacypac are troublesome, but that could well be six of one and half a dozen of the other as I think I've had to tell Legacypac off at one point myself. Unfortunately the deal breaker is the answer to Q9, and what really bothers me is the candidate didn't seem to consider searching through existing articles (where 7 currently mention the topic) and then try a Google search which brings up reasonable sources such as this and this. I don't really mind what the answer is to this question too much (anything from "expand and nominate at DYK" to "start an AfD" would do, provided a suitable justification is given for it), except that I need to have some understanding on how we evaluate sources and use them to write prose. The deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" and I wanted to see evidence the candidate understood this. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case, so I can't support at this time. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    IMHO, "search for and add a source myself" and "inclined to add links if appropriate" means that the user is intending to Google the article subject and look at existing articles for possible wikilinks during examination of the page. Godsy's answer to Q9 goes above and beyond what many (or even most) participants at NPP would do.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    Well personally I love turning down a CSD A7 and expanding it to DYK (examples here) but if time is tight, a quick google for a marginal topic (which takes 10 seconds) is usually enough to tip the balance between "decline A7, try PROD / AfD" and hitting the delete button. It's not a perfect science, just a heuristic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

13. Oppose per the other comments above. Five years is not enough for a new admin. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    Um ... five years is not enough time? What percentage of current administrators do you think edited for five years before passing RfA? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    I'm going to hope this !vote is parody. If it isn't, it is quite literally a !vote for the end of the project as we know it, as we simply can not operate using only admins with five years on the project. That's not sustainable in the long-term as our old-timey admins burn out or move onto other things. There would have to be major changes to how the project operates to make such a criteria feasible. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    Frankly, silly oppose votes like this bring the whole RfA process into disrepute, particularly when some of us try and give reasonable and constructive criticism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    It ought to be apparent that Ktruckergirl is taking cues from other more experienced editors, see Chris Troutman's vote above for the origin of the new five year requirement. Id point to Kudpungs guide for RfA here and say never vote solely on the basis of what someone else has said. Think it through for yourself and make up your own mind. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    Actually, I have a question for KGirlTrucker81. You supported Widr (5 years on project), Anarchyte (1 year on project), and Vanamonde93 (3 years on project) within the past year. Where is this new criteria coming from? Of the three you supported at odds with your above criteria, Widr and Vanamonde93's RfAs succeeded. Do you believe they haven't been net positives with the mop? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    Yes, they meet the content creation criteria they meet. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 12:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    Widr was not really a content creator though? More of a WikiGnome, pardon the label. Patient Zero^talk 12:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    OK, forgive me if I am wrong here, but I am slightly concerned about your command of English. Your paraphrasing of a ridiculous oppose !vote says it all. Secondly, your signature says "what I'm been doing". (Just so you know: it's "I've".) Finally, I think I corrected something on your userpage a little while ago that didn't make any sense. I respect that you may find spelling difficult from time to time (I've seen your user page), but this goes a little bit further than just the odd spelling error in my view. Patient Zero^talk 12:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    A friendly reminder not to jump to conclusions, Patient Zero. Reading and writing are two very different things. I, for example, can read and understand French without too many problems. Writing it however.... Yintan  13:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    Indeed, Yintan. My apologies for being jumpy. I was just rather concerned. By the way: Je parle français aussi! Patient Zero^talk 13:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    The reason why I said five years is not enough because this user has a history of battleground behavior. So, I recommend whatever year intake is free of behavioral issues. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 06:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

14. Oppose: I rarely vote in these, but I have to oppose this one. I have concerns about Godsy's understanding of some of our basic policies and behaviors. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    @Niteshift36: Could you be more specific? What policies and behaviors do you think Godsy does not have a good understanding of? Could you provide examples of Godsy failing to understand something or a time when Godsy displayed poor behavior? -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    I understand you support Godsy and you have clearly decided to become an advocate for them. But no, I'm not going to be cross-examined by you on my opinion. I've stated my concerns. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    With respect, I wouldn't really call it a cross examination more than I would call it a desire to understand your opinion. You've stated your concerns, but you haven't quite substantiated them. This is supposed to be a "!vote" (pronounced "not-vote"), and consensus is decided based on evidence. Mz7 (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC) (Addendum: I would note, however, that the same issues appear with support !votes. Mz7 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

    I actually don't have to substantiate my vote to your satisfaction. RfA's actually are a vote. This isn't AfD, where I need to cite a specific policy or guideline. I don't intend to rehash issues I've observed with Godsy's behavior. Others already have given examples. If I were the only person talking about behavior, I could see this insistence on examples, but when so many are already mentioning it..... Niteshift36 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    Despite your claim, RfA's are not a vote. See WP:RFA#Decision process. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    Your conduct is exactly the reason I tend to avoid these. And I'm not some new editor with a few dozen edits, but you act like I have to justify something to you. I don't. I gave my opinion. I said why I opposed it. That's sufficient. I don't need to dig out diffs to justify anything to you. You're just another editor. Stop acting like you're running the show. Sorry I don't support your client. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

    Yes, they do, and in in most RfAs not just this one. Very few supporters are ever asked to clarify their empty "yes, me too" votes (and there are usually many of them). Also, RfA is a vote (an election); a candidate has to receive a certain supermajority threshold. That's a vote by definition, even if 'Crats have a bit of wiggle room for their own judgement if it's close, kind of like an electoral college of sorts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    This is getting off topic, so I'll be brief. I wonder if there is a tendency at RfA to assign a "burden of proof" to the opposition, and if such a tendency exists, whether it is justified. Something to think about for the RfA reformers out there. Mz7 (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    There's a reason I asked. I recognized your name, Niteshift36, from Godsy's talk page. Back in May, you gave Godsy a cookie from a discussion the two of you had over Johann Fust Community Library. From the discussion, it seems you two disagreed on the usage of a few sources and section headings within the article. From my standpoint, it looks like both of you came to an amicable compromise and I didn't see any behavioral or policy-based misunderstanding from Godsy. I was curious if that discussion was the root of your opposition of Godsy, and if so, if you could offer your side of the story. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    You've clearly become an advocate for Godsy, so making it sound like "I was curious" is a little misleading. The fact that you took it on yourself to try to research it shows there's more than idle curiosity involved. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

15. Oppose the user is new, unexperienced, easily provoked and willing to bypass policies to get things done his way. Fbergo (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
16. Oppose, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
17. Oppose: Many of this user's edits consist of several small changes to the same page, many of which are several edits over very short periods of time (often 4-5 in less than a minute). This is true even on pages he creates. In Adam's ale, for example, 167 of out of less than 200 total are his edits and most of those were made in multiple small, rapid fire edit that is clearly his editing style. To me, that implies his edits are more impulsive response rather than a planned (i.e., well-thought out) intent. It also implies either a trial and error editing method, or an outright disdain for the show preview button. These are predominant traits I'm not comfortable in supporting for an administrator role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMJKWhite (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
18. Oppose The nominator recently created grease fire. This is a common safety hazard and this page now appears on the first page of google hits for the topic. The article is not yet very good but we should really have WP:MEDRS quality work for a topic as important as this. If you're going to tackle a topic like this, you should stick at it until it's not going to get someone killed. Admins need to have a good appreciation of such issues. Andrew D. (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    WTF? You're opposing because the candidate created an article about a notable subject with references, because you think the subject is dangerous? I'm guessing you would have supported an outright ban on the creator of the Adolf Hitler and Ku Klux Klan articles? Editing Wikipedia is kind of what we're here for. What are you here for? Ribbet32 (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    Indeed. That's the most useless and off-base oppose I've ever seen. It will, obviously, be completely disregarded in assessing the outcome by the 'Crats.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    So you're !voting oppose because the candidate created an stub-class article on a dangerous topic that Google's algorithm put on the first page? How is it the candidates fault if, as you say, reading the article "gets someone killed"? That's why we have the risk disclaimer. Joshualouie711 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    The disclaimer is not a free pass to write poor content. We regularly chide editors who contribute weak or misleading content on BLP or medical matters. This issue of fire safety is of comparable importance – hundreds of people are killed each year by these common incidents. I expect an admin to be able to write content of better quality and to have the commonsense to understand when this is expected. A flip attitude like close enough for government work is a reason to think that the candidate still has room for improvement and so is not ready for promotion. Andrew D. (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    With no opinion on this particular vote, I went ahead and removed the advice. Diff before change. Esquivalience (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

19. Weak Oppose; Ahh, I'm torn on how I should vote, but I'm leaning towards oppose. He has a lot of experience, but I find the lack of image uploads weird. I also dislike the fact that he is only active in two WikiProjects. I'd definitely trust you with rollback tools, but I think that you're *this* close to acquiring the tools. I wouldn't say you're there just yet. Sorry! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    Discussion moved to the talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

20. Oppose: Based on his edits, and the edits of other admins, I do not believe that he is qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catmando999 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Slon02, TParis, and Davey2010. The incident with Legacypac concerns me. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
22. Oppose primarily due to question #4. Concerns about lack of experience in CSD and counter-vandalism also lead me to believe that the user has insufficient experience to have access to advanced functions. — Music1201 ^talk 00:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
23. Oppose. While there are indeed some very dubious oppose votes here and I’ve absolutely nothing against self-noms from clearly well established editors, I firmly do not believe that Godsy has the right temperament for adminship, although their keen interest in the way Wikipedia is run is to be welcomed. SMcCandlish has echoed exactly the thoughts I had when I was about to vote here but was called away to something else. Richie333 also makes some very salient points. KMJKWhite highlights an issue with multiple edits which I had already identified in Godsy’s participation in RfCs where he doesn’t seem to be able to make his mind up or get his post correct - this sometimes approaches nearly a hundred small edits. Only a very in-depth research of his entire history would reveal how much this issue accounts for his edit count and if it really is problematic but it is a sufficient additional reason to give me further pause concerning his bid for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
24. Oppose: I recall Godsy from the MfD/STALEDRAFT kerfuffle earlier this year (which itself is related to the Legacypac issue). While I don't believe Godsy's conduct in that dispute and its affiliated ANI threads went beyond what all involved (myself included) should agree was generally unimpressive conduct, I have now looked back upon what became of the other participants after I walked away from that dispute. I am disturbed by Godsy's interactions with Legacypac. While I do not consider this permanently disqualifying, I think it might have been a better idea to wait until sometime next year to seek the mop.
    As to the self-nom issue, while there is nothing inherently bad about it, I believe that in the current RfA climate, it shows poor judgment or inexperience in persuasive writing to fail to obtain one or more nominating statements. As I've said before, the RfA is likely our last chance to evaluate a candidate's demeanor and professionalism. Given the admin corps often are the public face of the Wiki, a candidate's approach should show a depth of critical thinking, self-evaluation, and persuasive writing that one should expect from an applicant for a public-facing job. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
25. Weak Oppose: There are a few reasons for my voting this way. First off, his interactions with Legacypac aren't the best. Second off, I am kind of concerned about him, and the fact that he is self-nominated worries me. While there is nothing really wrong with self nomination, I think that it is suspect in his case. Third, I am worried, based on what I have seen, about what his conduct with new users would be as an admin. Also, I think that he needs to get a bit better at answering questions, which seems to be a large part of being an admin. Fourth, his testing of a template on the mainspace. RileyBugz (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
26. Oppose: I have multiple concerns with this user, first off I do not find the self-nomination very convincing nor the answers to the questions, second he is still fairly new and inexperienced, I'm not saying he need 5 years of experience but more time and experience will help overall, his editing patterns are what I have the most problem with. As KMJKWhite pointed out, most of his edits are small minor edits even on the same pages correcting and self reverting himself multiple times in a short amount of time, while I do this occasionally Godsy seems to do this on a regular basis. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
27. Oppose. Sorry, I've been looking for a reason to support, as this is a very marginal RFA, but some very weak answers to the questions does not inspire me with confidence. In particular, I was expecting a potential admin to know about the importance of protecting images before adding them to the main page - Godsy did not mention that. I've no problem with the reluctance to handle that area, but the background knowledge should still be there. What swung my decision to oppose, however, were recent edits such as this file name change request, (also [19], [20] and [21]), where the template has been left incomplete. This is too much of an oversight for me to let it pass. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    @Optimist on the run: It wasn't an oversight, I intentionally left those incomplete (i.e. without a suggested name), which is allowed (see Template:Rename media). They populate Category:Incomplete file renaming requests. The current file names are inappropriate (Wikipedia:File names). Some of the twenty or so images I added that template to are different pictures of the same structures, and I didn't have the time to sort out the distinctions and name them harmoniously. I can move them myself as a file mover, and I plan to sort it out after the conclusion of this RfA, unless another user with the ability to do so gets to it first.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

28. Oppose As many above have mentioned, not quite there yet. Intothatdarkness 18:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
29. Oppose at this time. Presently I share the hesitation about incaution mentioned by others. I asked about the Jenner talk page because caution when operating around a harm question, including a mindfulness that talk pages are public-facing, is the sort of thing I consider very important in an admin candidate. That said I was really glad to see that Godsy chose to send the racial slur entry through AfC to get more opinion before publishing; it was a very thoughtful choice and I think that going forward with a similar emphasis on caution could definitely assuage my concerns for a subsequent RfA. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
30. Oppose Godsy's persistent and pointless stalking of me while I was working on a backlog of old abandoned drafts was a major factor in driving me out of editing. On a number of occasions he took multiple avenues to reverse actions for absolutely no good reason. He appears to enjoy twisting Wikipedia policy in ways that defy explanation. If granted Adminship I fully expect him to use the mop as a club against his enemies. Legacypac (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
31. Oppose While some of these opposes are indeed nonsense (or perhaps simply "beyond my ken"), others are quite sensible, including those of SMcCandlish, TParis, Yintan, and others. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
32. The candidate has sufficient experience, although their edit count seems to be quite inflated: Adam's ale took too many (167) edits to expand it to this state (even though some content was split). However, the candidate's judgement is insufficient for adminship. The candidate displays their user rights too prominently in their nomination. Grease fire, an article that the candidate expanded, is written with an instructive rather than encyclopedic tone, which does not bolster my confidence with the candidate. Esquivalience (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
33. Oppose. I do not believe that someone with a feuding and battleground mentality (even if perhaps restricted to certain areas or editors) should be given the tools. I also feel there is insufficient experience overall. But my main point is my first one. Softlavender (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
34. Oppose per above. Concerns with temperament -FASTILY 04:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
35. Oppose. I have no problem with the self-nomination, and getting tools isn't always hat collecting. However there's the Legacypac matter and this seems like an odd move (although it probably looks odder from this point in time, and Godsy seemed to understand when it was pointed out). I see the same problem described above as temperament/mentality/tone. Maybe that's what other people are expressing as two years' being not long enough; it would help if the rough edges were smoother. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
36. Oppose Self-nomination is fine. But admins have to restrain themselves, and I do not think Godsy has the ability to do that to the extent required. Katie^talk 13:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
37. Oppose - I've wavered on this for a few days, and originally drafted this comment in the neutral section, and at one point was considering a principled support just because so many of these oppose comments are utter nonsense. I don't think self-nomination is a point against them and I think that the issue with Legacypac was one that needed to be dealt with as LP was being deliberately pointy with those page moves and was heading himself for a block for a very long time beforehand already; Godsy just happened to be on the other end of that, but somebody needed to be. Godsy and I have repeatedly disagreed on a fundamental principle of the purpose of redirects: that they're there primarily to help readers find the information they're looking for. I'm referring generally to this discussion and its many previous and related discussions. I want to stress that there is no fault in Godsy's behaviour here: they are civil, make finely-expressed arguments and back them up with guidelines and policies, everything that you would want to see in an administrator, and furthermore it's a different user who has been repeatedly relitigating this particular issue. I have a great deal of respect for Godsy, as a matter of fact. My problem is only with Godsy's conclusion, which would result in deletion of a clearly useful redirect only because of a contested point of policy. There is admittedly no consensus on the policy issue, but the proposed action has the end effect of making Wikipedia more difficult to use for some readers because of no better reason than petty semantics. I am thus concerned about what damage could be done by a user with access to deletion who prefers semantics to readability, concerned enough to land myself in the oppose section on this one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

Moral support, leaning support, but neutral for now. Similar to Tavix, I am familiar with Godsy since I am also a regular at RFD. For the most part, I am quite impressed with Godsy's contributions at RFD, including their incredible insight into nominations that have been listed there, my own included. However, with that being said, I have run across Godsy's editing a few times outside of RFD, including some edits regarding when the extended confirmed user right was implemented, and during that time, I somewhat questioned some of Godsy's edits during that time, including the RfD nomination of Wikipedia:30/500. In all honesty, even with what I have seen outside of RFD regarding Godsy, I'm pretty sure this RFA is going to pass, and I will honestly probably move this comment to Support eventually, but I'm just not there right now since That nomination alone has me thinking a bit about this. Steel1943 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Moving to "support". Steel1943 (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

...And I'm back here after reading TParis' comment. I do recall the Legacypac "incident" that essentially resulted in an editor who was dedicated to clearing the WP:X1 backlog being temporarily blocked then never returning. Knowing of the nominator's part in that alone (which I did not consider when I moved my opinion to "support") prevents me from supporting, but cannot oppose since the editor is still a net positive. But, I'm just not a fan of events that happen that result in productive editors not coming back. Steel1943 (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Yes, I am saying this while being aware of Legacypac's block log. Legacypac's hot-headed-ness got them in trouble sometimes, but at the end of the day, they wanted to help clear a backlog that needed clearing, and that is a positive ... Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Moving back to "Support". Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Steel1943, remind me to never ask you if you want tea or coffee, I'd be worried I'd get it wrong.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutral for now. I'd like to see some better answers to some of the questions, especially #4. Godsy has created several redirects, only to request them deleted, sometimes immediately (e.g. US of A.), and I'd like some explanation for this. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Switching to oppose - sorry. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Optimist on the run: Once in a blue moon, I'll create a redirect by accident that isn't plausible, or I'll create one purposely and later decide that it isn't plausible. That is how hou know is a good example of the former, US of A. is a good example of the latter. I have a good grasp of whether or not a redirect is appropriate from my work at RfD, so if I create one that isn't, I request its deletion per G7.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The history log for US of A. indicates that you created it at 22:37, 3 November 2015, and requested deletion at 22:38, 3 November 2015. This seems a very quick change of mind to decide it isn't "plausible", and I'd just like to know what your thinking was. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Optimist on the run: It was created along with U.S. of A. and U. S. of A.. I decided that leaving out some periods but including others was implausible and would have too many semi-equally plausible variations such as "U.S of A" etc.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 12:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Neutral for now (or rather, "abstain", really). I see this user mainly at WP:RFD, where I am a regular, and I've been alerted to this discussion by another RfD reg. I think it my duty to !vote rather than seem apathetic, but I don't really feel qualified to opine on Godsy's other activities, since it's not in areas I tend to edit or read. Si Trew (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
2. Neutral JustAGuyOnWikipedia (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
3. Neutral I'm sitting neutral for now due to a number of reasons, and I'll explain. First of all, I am not bothered at all about self-nominations and RFA. Running around and tapping people on the shoulder for nominations is a political thing; to me, it only helps an RFA and the lack thereof is certainly not a fair and level-headed rationale to oppose an RFA right-out. However, a rationale that I'm seeing that is fair to use in an RFA vote are the discussions that SMcCandlish have brought up. I will look into these in-depth and go from there; indeed if there are concerns that are legitimate, it will sway my vote. Staying here for now until I read through the concerned discussions and make a decision. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
4. Neutral/Abstain - I remain unswayed by either side and my own research hasn't pushed or pulled me either way either. Few in the opposition have brought up any concerns that would sway me, and supporters, as is usual, bring limited useful feedback to do the same. I am thus left to rely on the Q&A, Godsy's answers to some of the questions are fairly good, but, I have my reservations about some of their other answers too. All in all, I cannot support the candidate, but, ,I also don't have an acceptable reason to oppose. We'll see if this changes in the coming days. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)