Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Galobtter

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Galobtter

Final (208/46/12); Closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 12:36, 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: Well, it isn't necessary. One could replace it with a shorter paraphrased summary, which could convey most of the meaning. But I think something would be lost in the process; as the quote explains her background in food and how she succeeded at the Culinary Institute of America despite that, with that success being quite important to her career and life, in my opinion it works quite well as the only block quote. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Question from -- Amanda (aka DQ)

15. What's the most daunting RfC (whether a deletion discussion or something else) you've closed? Daunting being completely subjective, and that's what i'm looking for.

A: I would say it is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2018 archive#RfC on use of Spanish regional identity in biography leads. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Shrike

16. In what WP:DSTOPICS do you consider yourself WP:INVOLVED or have strong POV?

A: Well, I certainly would not participate in WP:ARBAP2 arbitration enforcement as an uninvolved admin. American Politics is the main area where I do have strong opinions and have heavily edited, and for other areas, I wouldn't preemptively consider myself involved. Additionally, I know that being generally seen as uninvolved or not pushing a POV when acting as admin is important, especially in DS areas, and would evaluate involvement in specific disputes with that in mind. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Wumbolo

17. Do you still agree with the rationale in your !vote at Talk:CCH Pounder#Requested move 20 February 2018?

A: I agree with that rationale; however I hadn't seen that tweet about the subject's own explicit preference when I made that comment; that preference would make me basically neutral on the move. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Binod Basnet

18. Just a polite question Galobtter. I see you are displaying only username removing user: in Userpage title. Isn't it bit confusing with articles for beginners?

A: I wouldn't think so. The styling applied to the title distinguishes it from an article title, and the user page text makes it pretty clearly, even for a newbie, not an article but someone's user page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Question from -- SashiRolls

19. Speaking of your user page, could you clarify what you mean when you write What we should really be encouraging is that anyone who's has a reasonable long track record to show cluelessness and civility to nominate themselves - it should not require networking, knowing "who's who", or hunting for a nominator nor should it be a preparation for a trial by fire. sourced below, and when you write that youth should not be a barrier to adminship? Are you young? Do you really believe cluelessness is an attribute for an admin? How about a clear writing style? (edit: the page has since been corrected, making me realize it was a template, which changes the text linked above...an advantage of editing templates... cf here.

A: That seems like 3-4 questions rolled into one, but anyhow: This copyedit should clarify what you've quoted; and youth should not be a barrier to adminship is a pretty good summation of the point of that section of my essay; not sure what you want clarified further. I banged that essay out quickly quite a while back (just to jot down my thoughts) and haven't bothered to revise it too much to correct all the grammar mistakes or to make it clear, which is why some sentences are somewhat confusing or incoherent. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Question from -- YBG

20. As TfD was listed as part of your experience, I'm wondering what your opinion is about templates which are only transcluded one time. YBG (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A: My opinion is that whether or not to delete a single-use template has to be decided on a case by case basis. There are templates like the {{Infobox element}} series of {{Infobox hydrogen}} and so on which are single-use but are helpful to create consistency and there are others that may be helpful in reducing complexity of markup; there are some "single-use" templates which are actually used multiple times in one page which also can be useful; however there are also many single-use templates which hide code that could easily be in the page and so should substed and deleted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Question from -- Spirit of Eagle

21. Do you believe that a claim made by a living person is entitled to protection under WP:BLP? If so, under what conditions should protection be provided? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A: Saying that a claim (that had been made by a living person) is false or racist or something controversial like that is equivalent to saying that a living person made a false or racist claim, which would be obviously be protected under BLP. This would be especially important in cases where saying that a claim is false would imply that the person making the claim was trying to defame someone else (as in the case where the claim is that someone else committed a crime). Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from Politrukki

22. Does the three-revert rule mean that reverts that do not involve the same material must not be counted towards 3RR?

A: No; as long as the reverts are on the same page, whether they involve different or the same material does not matter. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

23. A US Senator is accused of domestic violence. The allegation is widely reported in reliable sources. An administrator speculates on the article talk page that the allegation is flimsy, weak, and suspicious, and theorises it smells of dirty politicking because the allegation surfaced shortly before midterm elections. How would you address the administrator's conduct?

A: Assuming that this is their own speculation and they aren't bringing reliable sources doing that speculation to the table in relation to a change to the article, I would ask them to stop doing so per WP:NOTFORUM, the fact that their comments are not helpful/relevant as they are not based on policies and guidelines, and likely per WP:BLP as they are speculating that the accuser is trying to defame the senator. Depending how egregious and persistent the specific conduct is and if they continue, I may ask for sanctions against them at WP:AE. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Hhkohh

24. Do you plan to close AfD? Why or why not?

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)

    Reaffirming my support. AP2 topics are as contentious as they come; allegations of NPOV violation are a dime a dozen. If these need to carry any weight, they need to be backed up by evidence; so far I'm seeing nothing beyond two redactions that were not ideal but hardly major missteps. We need admins able to navigate complicated political topics. Vanamonde (talk) 17:30, 2 December 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. 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)

59. 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)
60. 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)
61. 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)
62. Support. Qualified, per the nominators, and the opposes are unpersuasive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
63. 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)
64. 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)
65. 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)
66. 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)
67. Support – Clueful, qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 01:12, 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)
69. Support: trusted contributor; capable Wikipedian. Thank you for volunteering. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
70. Support - highly clueful, qualified, skillful. Neutrality^talk 02:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
71. Support -- a year of excellent work is fully enough--it's the quality that counts. An admin should have some experience of editing, and he has--he's done excellent work on a number of articles, most recently Frances Roth. there's no need for very extensive editing experience--a good case could be made that those interested in writing multiple long excellent articles should stick to that, because we need that even more than we need admins. The admin related work seems fine; I've checked what has been a difficult point lately, G11 speedys, especially in draft space, and I agree with what he's done--and so do all the other admins who have been reviewing them. I looked particularly at the ones on his speedy list that were now in blue, and they were in every case recreations, not declined speedies. The AfD work is within the expected level--results there are so erratic that the only way to avoid mistakes is to do very little, or to do nothing that is not utterly obvious. Most important there, when he's made a mistake in nominating an article, he says so and withdraws the nomination. That's the sort of judgment needed for an admin. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
72. Support Trusted and level-headed Wikipedian. Galobtter earning the mop would be a net positive to the encyclopedia. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support for Galobtter. I still find them to be of sound judgment, and believe that, despite the issues raised, that they’ll still rise to the occasion and be a great addition to the admin corps, should they be given the mop. OhKayeSierra (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

73. Support Seems to be a competent editor. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
74. Support Net positive, opposes thus far are more unconvincing than usual. -FASTILY 03:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
75. Support - Seems to show good judgment; not persuaded by the opposes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
76. Support - I've had generally positive interactions with this editor. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
77. Support We need more admins who are not "old hands" who feel obliged to fob off less experienced editors. G fits the bill. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
78. Support - Galobtter will be a trusted Wikipedian. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
79. Support I highly support this editor who exemplifies the best of being WP:CIVIL! 25k edits in a year is pretty darn good too. We need admins who will handle debates and issues in a calm and collected way, and G's talk page history shows a consummate professional at work. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 06:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
80. Support We need more admins, and I don't think Galobtter will do anything untoward. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
81. Support Galobtter has given thoughtful and satisfying answers to the above questions. We do indeed need more admins and I feel even more secure voting for one who is an intermediate pianist, Humanist, Empiricist, contributes to WikiProject Chemistry and speaks English at a godlike level.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
82. Support Net positive, meets minimum qualifications. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 09:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
83. Support More admins is always a good thing; also trusted noms. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
84. Support. Not being convinced by "The newest and quirkiest tiki bar is poolside at the Disneyland Hotel and is inspired by the theme park's Jungle Cruise and the drinks "Trader Sam" bought home with him. There are lots of fun gimmicks -- the barstools can be secretly lowered by the bartenders -- and they sell a great selection of that favorite collectible, a tiki mug" seems to be a feature, not a bug. Some other supporting arguments are also convincing. Pldx1 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
85. Support - Galobtter seems to know what they are at when editing, and would represent a clear net positive if the mop were bestowed upon them in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
86. Support - nice to see an admin candidate with a track record of content creation. Something to be encouraged. WCM_email 14:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
87. Support - to counter the stated opposes. A year of consistendtly over 2000 edits a month is a clear sign of activity. 20 articles with a couple of Bs is sufficient content creation - we have got to stop setting impossible levels. Of more an issue is the BLP aspect, but I do not believe Galobtter shows indications of non-NPOV activity with numerous editors specifically supporting for his activity in controversial articles. I don't see how having high activity in Trump-focused articles automatically makes him too political to be an admin. I do see how his participation both warrants admin tools and deserves them. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
88. Support - seen them around, they're good for wikipedia. Full Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 17:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
89. Support - per noms. None of the diffs suggesting political bias are convincing, and the claims that 1 year/25k edits aren't enough experience are laughable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
90. Support: Have high regard for his work...will make a great admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
91. Support per noms. Appears to be an excellent candidate. Layzner (Talk) 17:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
92. Support, no big deal. Also, I should like to stare grimly at those people who think 25,000 edits are not enough to demonstrate experience. Fish+Karate 17:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
93. Support I see Galobtter as an overall positive addition to the admins list. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
94. Support - Always seems level headed and clueful. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
95. Support After reading all the oppose !votes and reviewing diffs, I don't see any credible reason to not trust Galobtter with the mop (unless we're going to disqualify anyone that edits more contentious articles on a regular basis, which would be silly). --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 18:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
96. Support - I feel the majority of opposes are more or less focusing on small trivial matters that don't really matter .... (Although the redaction is a bit silly mind), Anyway the tenure is somewhat of an issue but other than that I don't see any issues, Trusted and knowledge editor. –Davey2010^Talk 18:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
97. Support - sensible, sound, and civil editor who appears to be very trustworthy and clueful. I have a high opinion of Galobtter from what I've seen of him before. I have read and reflected on the oppose !votes; I do not agree that he isn't experienced enough, and I see no other red flags. I wouldn't have thought the redacted comment worth removing, myself, but it's a trout worthy incident rather than anything that would make me oppose giving him the mop. --bonadea contributions talk 19:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
98. Support No concerns Polyamorph (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
99. Support I'm unconvinced by oppose rationales. Activity is unimportant to me. NPOV is more concerning, but I didn't see any good examples of it. Hence support. Banedon (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
100. Support Solid candidate. Yes, he has opinions but I don't see any solid evidence that he will abuse the tools to get his way in future disputes. Pichpich (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
101. Support I trust the noms and am not convinced by the opposers. Zero evidence he would use the tools for POV editing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
102. Support per DGG and the answers to the questions. Like TonyBallioni I would urge the candidate to be cautious in using admin powers in the American Politics arena but see no reason to expect that they won't do so. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
103. Support Seems to be a knowledgeable, currently pretty active person who will be beneficial to Wikipedia as an Admin. Edit count and lack of created articles or AfD percentage do not concern me - total edit count does not reflect on future activity and (this is a personal opinion) it's always better to NOT have useless/unreliable/promotional information on Wikipedia than to have too much of that junk just to satisfy someone's subjective quotas. Also, this is to counteract some "Oppose" votes which, based on edit history of some editors, exist only because the candidate did not conform to the biased POV of those editors.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
104. Support we have backlogs. I suspect the candidate will be a net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
105. Support. Excellent candidate, and the oppose votes are completely unconvincing. I agree with MelanieN's comments below – not everyone who contributes to political articles has a POV problem. Bradv🍁 23:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
106. Support. Net positive - benefits of giving him the mop are likely much stronger than the identified reasonable concerns/risks. A sample of his edits at Donald Trump ([3]) doesn't suggest that he's POV-pushing there. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
107. Support Per everyone above. --@Boothsift 00:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
108. support no problems--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
109. support Sounds like an excellent person to be an admin Abzeronow (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
110. Support. I'm displeased enough with the personal attacks in some of the opposes that it has moved me to support. If you're going to accuse someone of NPOV violations or being a bad-faith actor, you need serious proof. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
111. Support My review of Galobtter's edits found that they hold a solid grasp of WP policies and guidelines. Maintaining a strong neutral balance in a controversial area (such as American Politics) can be difficult, and yet, Galobtter has done well in doing so. Single points of contention will arise -- it is the essential quality of a controversial area. However, I see no demonstration of any pattern of non-neutral POV by Galobtter. This suggests to me that they will continue to use good judgement and can be trusted as an administrator. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
112. Support. I am confident in Galobtter's ability to perform useful administrative work outside of areas in which Galobtter is an involved editor, and I am confident that the tools will not be used when Galobtter is involved. Dekimasuよ! 02:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
113. Support -- Looks like a reasonably competent editor to me. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
114. Support I kept waiting for some substance to the opposes. I don't see much meat on the bones of the valid criticisms and not all the criticisms seem valid. Easy support when even many of the opposes consider him trustworthy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
115. Support Based on the nominations, the responses to the questions, and my occasional interaction with them at AfD, I believe this user will make a good administrator. SportingFlyer talk 04:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
116. Support well qualified, knows what they are doing - lots of participation in the deletion process, and the use of template-editor rights --DannyS712 (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
117. Support- Awesome Wikipedian does it for me. FitIndia ^Talk 07:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
118. Support: I think Galobtter will do fine. With adminship they should be expected to tread more carefully in AP2 topic area, because by then their action will carry more weight and their words will be exposed to more scrutiny similar to how this RfA has turned out to be, as usual. Alex Shih (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
119. Support. Performs excellent closures. Remains neutral even when dealing with contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 09:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

     Regarding two-factor authentication, I highly recommend you enable this feature for the interest of security. This is a good practice for not just Wikipedia, but for all of your online accounts that support it. If you don't currently use a password manager, I would also recommend using one. Protecting your online accounts with unique complex passwords is even more important. — Newslinger talk 23:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

120. Support: Solid contributor to many areas of the project including admin-like work suggesting that the additional tools would be put to good use. Some have voiced concerns about the relatively short period of activity and amount of activity in political articles. But, it seems to me, if you can amass that many edits in that short a period in highly contentious areas, without losing your cool (or getting sanctioned), that’s a positive. O3000 (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
121. Support: has a reason for the tools and doesn't look like a psychopath. Let's break down the neutrals and opposes: there are temperament concerns but I can't see any specified areas in which the candidate shows bad temperament; Q6 evidences an unnecessary redaction, and I urge the candidate to rethink their position on this, but it doesn't (in isolation) push me to oppose. I hear a lot of "political POV" but no-one's even mentioned which way they lean (or is this centrist POV-pushing?); really what I see is an interest in politics. Writing "only" does not suddenly make a big number small (such as a year of editing, 16 article creations, 10K mainspace edits or 26K edits). Discretionary sanction warnings should be given to all users working in those areas and the fact that this is not done by bot (as has been proposed) is a fault in the system, not in Galobtter's actions. And 2FA will never be necessary if your password is genuinely strong and unique. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
122. Support – Not impressed with the speculative, crystal ball predictions in the oppose section assuming POV-pushing via use of the tools. I trust that Galobtter has an ability to foresee avoiding or recusing themself from performing admin actions in areas they are personally or heavily involved in editorially. Also supporting in a meager way to obviate TParis' overly eager and pointy, "strongest possible oppose" rhetoric, hand-waving and general overreaction in their !vote. RfA is not a pillory. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
123. Support I've never voted on an RfA before but in past discussions I've been impressed by Galobtter's in-depth knowledge of our policies and I believe he is capable of using the tools responsibly. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
124. I don’t find the opposes very convincing, and IMO, the positives outweigh the negatives, so weak support. Courcelles (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
125. I, like Courcelles, don't find the opposes very convincing (Flooded with them hundreds' in particular is utter bullshit). Nick (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
126. Support - I've seen good work from this editor, no significant missteps and the opposes seem thin at best. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
127. Support - After reading over the candidate's answers to the questions, the arguments raised on both sides, and their record, I see nothing of such concern as to make me feel they would not be an excellent administrator. No-one is perfect, but I think on the whole Galobtter has shown he would be a competent admin. I specifically like his work as a bot operator and his careful, conscientious editing in some of our most contentious areas. On the whole, I support him as a candidate and wish him the best of luck. Mifter (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
128. Support If the candidate was a stealth POV pusher then there ought to be far better evidence than that minor "wild claims" incident. As for the notion that the newly minted administrator might disappear, that is crystal ball gazing without evidence and this is a volunteer project and people are free to come and go as they see fit. Yes, I wish that the candidate had a GA or two and slightly longer tenure but the articles they've written are pretty good and show they understand content creation. The bottom line is that we need administrators and this candidate has been nominated by three people I trust. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
129. Support - After considering all aspects of the nomination and the candidate's qualifications, I've come down on the "support" side. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
130. Support - All my run-ins with him have been positive and I think he would make an excellent SysOp. Kb03 (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
131. Support definitely. Seen them around doing good work. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
132. Stephen 22:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
133. Support Working a a particularly emotive area of the site is going to cause some controversies, but I don't see anything which would convince me to oppose this candidacy; indeed, it would be beneficial to Wikipedia to have another admin with a good editing record in this contentious arena. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
134. Support per noms. I trust Galobtter will do a fine job with the mop. –FlyingAce^✈hello 23:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
135. Support No reason to oppose. --Binod Basnet (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
136. Support. Zealous enforcement of BLP is usually considered a positive thing. The fact that it suddenly is not speaks more to the political agenda of the objections than of any alleged agenda of the editor in question. Gamaliel (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
137. Support, despite some reservations about experience. I've seen Galobtter around lately and trust the noms implicitly. The "wild claims" diff just ain't enough to oppose. GAB^gab 01:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
138. Support, because I believe the claims to lack of experience and edit count are exagerated, for example see my - albeit cautious - vote here on the successful RfA of a user who had been registered for barely a year and who had around 8,000 edits at that time. Despite a focus on American politics, I personally do not see sufficient evidence of tendentious or POV editing by Galobtter on articles that support the claims made by oposers (many of them pile-ons). Most contributors edit in areas where they have a special interest, but this does not mean POV or bias. One of our best FA editors is mainly concentrated on music, for example; would one say he has a POV, or that my peer review of his Edward Elgar was POV because the composer lived in my home town? We need admins, sure, but of course not at any cost, I nevertheless think however, that the drama (and paranoia?) in recent RfAs is getting out of hand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
139. Support we need more admins willing to do the dirty work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
140. Support, comfortable with answers given, no reason to expect abuse.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
141. Support, Personal experience suggests a collaborative and thoughtful person who has my trust.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
142. Support. Lots of clue. -- œ^™ 05:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

     OlEnglish Do you remember this :) :) :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

     I always knew you had clue ;) -- œ^™ 05:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

143. Support - Clear net positive, and very competent. Opposes are unconvincing. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
144. Support – Was neutral, pending a closer review, and am firmly on the support side at this point. Would like to see more content work (and less in just one area), and tad more tone control [says the grumpy guy], but there's nothing at all here to suggest this person would abuse the tools, and everywhere I look I'm seeing "good adminnish" behavior like sensible discussion closes, calm input at the noticeboards, responses at RfCs and RMs that are policy- and source-based, etc. I don't think 25K edits is anywhere near too small a number (I've been criticized before for daring to suggest a 10K minimum!) I also sharply disagree with the criticisms about giving out {{Ds/alert}} templates. We're supposed to do that, and it doesn't take an admin to do it. They are not threats or warnings, they're notices that ArbCom demands be given to people who regularly edit in a discretionary-sanctioned content area, so that they even know that DS apply there. Anyway, I do think that Galobtter can rise to the adminship challenge. I do not always agree with this editor, but they seem reasoning and reasonable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
145. Support, has shown considerable insight in the discussions where I encountered them. Fram (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
146. Support - Appears to possess good judgement and meet the other general points of my criteria. Some of the opposes seem to be a result of the candidate's work on AP articles, where any edit (maybe other than minor formatting changes) can be interpreted as POV-pushing by at least one person, so they do not really concern me. EclipseDude (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
147. Support. After reading most of the discussion here and the answers to the questions, I am quite sure that granting adminship will be a net positive for the project. I do have some minor concerns about their answer to my question, which I still believe is incorrect, however, they have eloquently defended their POV and it's the only recent deletion-related mistake I found in my spot check of their contributions. While the candidate feels quite strongly about some things, they are open about it and admit it when they made mistakes, able to reflect on the concerns brought up in this discussion and learn from it. As far as opposes due to limited activity go, they are not convincing. A great many admins (myself included) have passed RFA after "short" activity and have not yet burned down the project. Last but not least, I trust the three nominators implicitly that between the three of them they would have found any real problems when reviewing the candidate. Regards SoWhy 09:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
148. Support Claims by oppose !voters seem largely exaggerated. They are of course entitled to their opinions, but this is where mine falls. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
149. Support Did my own research. Galobtter is a competent editor who appears temperamentally suited for adminship. Vexations (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
150. Support - the rationales used in opposition are unconvincing, where they are backed up by a rational argument at all; many aren't. Every editor, administrators included, has a point of view on some topic or another, and if you're an editor in the United States and you have strong opinions on your current government, well then congratulations, you're not an ignorant fool. The only important consideration is whether the candidate has the clue to not use the tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. I haven't seen any evidence at all that's even remotely convincing that Galobtter would do so, and many actions and comments here and elsewhere suggesting they know how to recognize that line and not cross it. Well suited to the mop, in my opinion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
151. Support, even today, did a convincing quick edit sequence with an IP editor on a controversial page. Gave me the best possible warningnotice when I was in trouble for edit warring (again). Wakari07 (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
152. Support Net positive. But do at least take some of the more valid opposes about POV to heart and keep them in mind as you use the tools. Be mindful of your own biases, whatever they may be. -- ferret (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
153. Support - I'm slightly more concerned about tenure, edit count (including in mainspace) is more than sufficient. Assuming the worst examples are now brought up at any given RfA, I'm comfortable with this candidate wielding extra tools. I'm not seeing the POV pushing. Also supporting per SoWhy, Kudpung, and DGG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
154. Support - Seems like a sensible and level headed editor. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
155. S Why not?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
156. Support Reviewed the oppose comments, but I have not seen anything there that raises a red flag that would suggest that the candidate could not be trusted with the administrative tools. --Enos733 (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
157. Support I've mostly seen this editor's work at our Trump articles, difficult articles indeed. I've been very impressed with his ability to treat others with respect even during difficult exchanges. Some of us have a special ability to work as peace keepers while getting the job that needs doing done. He's one of those. I think he'd make an unusually good administrator. Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
158. Support Good answers to questions. Seems level-headed. Has the courage to work in contentious areas without adding to tensions. I think he'll make a first-rate administrator. Poltair (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
159. Support Seems to be promising. - Chandan Guha (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
160. Support Seems basically fine, the opposes that would be most worrisome are also most speculative. --JBL (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
161. Support. Politics contributions seem flawless, especially considering the nominators are such amazing people. Content creation seems low, but the articles he did create are fine. The custom userbox "en-∞" bothers me because he misspells words, misspells policies, uses plus signs and similar symbol language, etc etc. His RM closes are often great compromises (like this) and are otherwise solid. His RM !votes are almost always fine. This !vote might be a bit personal-POV-ish: [4], but I don't think I care – he is a very neutral editor, and I believe he will be a very good admin in that regard. I explained below why the Swetnick thing was a BLP violation. wumbolo ^^^ 22:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

     The stuff about the 15-year-old from India worries me, and I'll be moving to oppose if there are more similar instances of stereotyping. Sure, the problem is in the guy's nationality, not the fact that he's a teenager – I can't even understand how someone can even make such a personal attack... wumbolo ^^^ 22:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

162. Support. I worry a little about the clean block log which MelanieN tactlessly mentions, but otherwise, everything I've seen of this user suggests he'll make a fine admin. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC).
163. Support - it looks like the reason for opposing is "only" 26K edits and "only" active for a year? Good grief, that's way too picky. (I had 12K and had been here seven months.) --B (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

     you must not have read them.--v/r - TP 23:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

164. Support I have seen the candidate at politics and current-events related articles and I have found their comments to be reasoned, policy-based, and thoughtful, and stays calm in the face of much less reasoned, policy-based, thoughtful comments. The candidate hasn't done as much content creation as some recent candidates but they have created decent content. They might not have been active for long, but experience gained in the contentious AmPol and current events articles is worth quite a lot more than experience in less difficult areas of the project. I think they have the right temperament to be an admin. Support. Ca2james (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
165. Support based on the number and text of the 32 opposes, which did not convince me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
166. Support, having read this page and looked though some of this user's contributions. Jonathunder (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
167. Support not perfect, but edits in a highly controversial topic without generating significant controversy. Find bruce (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
168. Support, I like the political background. Eschoryii (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
169. Support - worthy candidate. Has my support. -- Longhair\^talk 09:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
170. Support Appears to be a sane person, which is most of what it takes. Probably more deletionist than me, probably spends too much time at ANI, but there's no accounting for taste :) Turning your nose up at a year of serious editing is no good. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
171. Support - Great work! Orphan Wiki 11:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
172. Support Well be useful in a needed area; seems reasonable and trustworthy despite contributing heavily to areas that can lead to a lot of controversy. Not concerned about recency; candidate's contributions are strong, and when I gained adminship I was active for a shorter period of time and had fewer edits. Spencer^T•C 13:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
173. Support per nominations. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
174. Support If it's good for Ritchie, GW, Kudpung, BMK, and TonyB it's good for me.^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
175. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I am sure he will take into account some of the feedback he has received here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
176. Support I find myself in the position of having actually interacted with this editor, as I'm one of the admins trying to keep order in the contentious American Politics arena where Galobtter frequently edits. I have generally found their contributions there to be clueful and productive, and I appreciate that instead of focusing exclusively on "wedge" issues that many editors seem to enjoy arguing incessantly about on talk pages, Galobtter dives into editing the actual articles, improving the less-controversial parts. When they do take a position on "wedge" issues it usually comes from the direction of "how does WP policy apply to this situation" (as opposed to the "what policy can I cite here to support my personal view" that I see quite often in the topic area). Concerns about WP:INVOLVED adminning are put to rest for me by their response to Q16 (saying that they do consider themselves involved in AP2 areas). It reminds me of my own RfA where I had a similar question about the "Mormonism" topic area which I had previously edited heavily and where I still do not employ any admin tools. ~Awilley (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
177. Support The answer to Q16 removed any residual POV concerns I might have had. Candidate appears fully qualified. Thank you for volunteering. CThomas³ (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
178. Support POV concerns don't appear to be well founded. NPOV does not mean we say something that's regarded as "politically in the middle" – that's centrism and itself a political ideology. Being neutral means we look at what most reliable sources say and state it. If Trump is lying according to the sources, well, then he's lying, there's no getting around that. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
179. Support. The candidate's experience is strong, and I think the points of discussion raised in questions or opposition do not give cause to question judgment. AGK ■ 23:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
180. Support The opposers don't swing it for me. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
181. Support. Never interacted with the nominee but I can't see much merit in the majority of the "oppose" votes. A single instance of a heated discussion (Q.13) in fact makes my support stronger – I'd be furious, too, in that situation. More generally, RfA is not to select one's life partner but to reduce the risk of serious damage to the project. I don't foresee that risk with this nominee. Hence, support. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
182. Support Per noms. Lourdes 00:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
183. Support Answers to the questions and the candidate's temperament assuage any concerns raised by those opposing. Best of luck, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
184. Support I see nothing that indicates the candidate would not be a good admin. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
185. Support. Cries of "too soon!" are incoherent for a candidate with a 5-year-old account, 25k edits and significant experience in more maintenance areas than most active admins. The fact that Galobtter has also managed to navigate the POV-ridden waters of our US politics coverage without serious drama should also be seen as a positive. – Joe (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
186. Support Good candidate. Wikipedia needs more admins. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
187. Support. Fine by me. Most of the opposes focus on this editor's "lack of experience", which I don't think is justified criticism. One year is ample time to learn the tricks of the trade. Deryck C. 11:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
188. Support - I'm adding my voice here a little hesitantly after having done my own research on the candidate. I agree that it's impressive that the candidate has been editing in such a controversial topic area and not gotten into trouble. It's also great that the candidate has amassed a decent amount of clue about WP culture and how things work. I'm hesitant because of the relatively limited content creation and the narrow area of interest — I would encourage the candidate to pursue more content creation and branch out a little from AP. Also, please start your admin work slowly (and take the comments in the opposition section to heart). I expect that promoting this candidate will be a net positive. - tucoxn\^talk 15:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
189. Support Per nominator and other respected editors. Don't see anything that may make me suspect he'll misuse the tools. He also has shown some fine writing skills. --1l2l3k (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
190. Support I've come across this editor before, and come away with nothing but good impressions. I can't remember any specifics. The nominators are impeccable judges of admin talent, too, so give Galbtter that mop. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
191. SupportMikhailov Kusserow (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
192. Support Obviously a good candidate. You have my support. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
193. Yetishawl (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
194. Support. Yes, not much content work, but I've generally been impressed with Galobtter's rationales for doing things when I've crossed paths with them. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
195. Support this user has objected to my behaviour, yet I believe they will be a net benefit to Wikipedia as an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
196. Support. My impression from the occasional brief interactions is of a clueful editor with a suitable temperament. – Uanfala (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
197. Support nepaxt 00:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
198. Support Galobtter has shown maturity and a commitment to improving Wikipedia whenever I've interacted with them. Will do a great job as admin. The RfA is overdue to be honest. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
199. Support Good candidate with no significant issues.--I am One of Many (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

     Support Seems like he would do useful work and not harm anything --Calefactivefaust (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Struck. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korruski.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

200. Support No concerns . Kpgjhpjm 11:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
201. Support All around a strong candidate. I was a bit worried about Galobtter’s decision to extend BLP to individual claims. However, it’s clear from their response to questions 21 and 23 that this decision was based on the unusually personal nature of the claim and situation at hand, rather than a bad interpretation of BLP. I suspected as much, but just wanted to make sure. All in all, I’m satisfied by the candidate’s knowledge of the relevant policies, and happily support. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
202. Support: This editor has worked in difficult areas and has run into some opposition, but I think anyone doing the work in those areas will ruffle some feathers. I don't see any sign of systematic bias and I see many examples of good judgement. I think Wikipedia will be stronger if he is given the mop.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
203. Support. I have had a generally positive impression of Galobtter whenever I’ve run into him, mostly in administrative areas involving conflict or vandalism, such as RFPP. I see sound judgment, broad policy knowledge, and an overall level head. I did come in with the impression that he might be a bit heavy-handed in applying certain policies, and this was confirmed by his answer to Q6 (regarding redactions) which has left me undecided in this request for a few days. However, I think that he will take this criticism to heart moving forward, and from what I’ve seen this isn’t a deal-breaker for me. Furthermore, I do not agree with qualms on his “short” one-year tenure as an active editor; on the contrary, I think this is plenty of time to figure out how things work here and show others that you can contribute well. Airplaneman ✈ 00:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
204. Support: After reading over the RfA and the few times I have interacted with Galobtter which have been very pleasant I have no problems with him being handed the mop. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 01:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
205. Support - Wow, that's a lot of opposition, and I was expecting there to be good reasons for that, but there's really not much substance down there whatsoever. The trypophobia comment is debatable, but it's not particularly unreasonable to argue that we should collapse an image that would trigger a phobia on an article about said phobia, to avoid "being jerks". The Indian comment was just plain silly. And there's nothing wrong with the BLP redaction, in fact it was spot on. Mr Ernie made a contentious unsourced claim about a living person—you can't just call someone a liar on-Wiki. Galobtter's redaction shows that they have a strong grasp of BLP policy and will take it seriously as an admin, which is a big plus. Frankly I'm unsure whether the users who are held up on this point are just unfamiliar with the very simple principles at hand or if this is just politically-motivated grudging, but either way, I'd feel much better having Galobtter as an admin than a user who thinks Mr Ernie's comment shouldn't have been redacted.  Swarm  {talk}  03:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
206. Support: I have read all the opposition and while they are valid, I think we can afford to give them the benefit of the doubt. Neovu79 (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
207. Support. After reading the Q&As, I was still on the fence; no serious objections, but nothing motivating me out of the "neutral" column. Then I read the "Oppose" comment section below. I can now offer enthusiastic support for this candidate. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
208. Support, god forbid someone only has a year and 25,000 edits of experience, and works in a controversial area. This is the kind of experience we need. The Moose 09:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Almost all edits done in the last year [5] 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)

   @MrX: and @Mandruss: I linked one example in my question. Perhaps if Galobtter had the tools then they would have blocked or topic banned me instead of just redacting my comment if they really thought I violated BLP. Their action in that interaction shows me they do not understand the BLP policy, and use it to advance a point of view. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

   To add some diffs, in reference to one of the Trump subarticles, an article can be "entirely negative", though the Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations article was "too detailed". It "seems reasonable" to add Islamophobic to the "populist, protectionist, and nationalist" line in the Trump lead, and a subject's denial of an accusation is "unimportant and meaningless". Considering the candidate commented on the rfa process in a user subpage a couple months after they began editing regularly, I doubt there are examples of overt POV pushing, even if that were their intention, but subtle POV pushing is a much bigger problem anyway. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

   Oppose I previously commented something else here, it's removed now. Flooded with them hundreds 12:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to talk page. —Kusma (t·c) 12:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

4. 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)

5. 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)
6. 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)

   Adding a few more reasons to justify my reasons for opposing this candidate other than simply not being ready - (1) he said quite innocently when accepting his nom: "...folks I consider among my favourite people on Wikipedia". While it may not seem like much, it is because admins should not show favouritism and he just did. Perceived favouritism is the same as it being real in the mind of the observer. (2) Q 19 by SashiRolls who brought this to our attention. Galob states: Age is in my opinion one of the poorest oppose arguments. I beg to differ, because age does matter - perhaps not so much to the young because they lack the knowledge only experience can bring. Also in that comment he states: What we should really be encouraging is that anyone who's has a reasonable long track record to show clue and civility to nominate themselves.... There are other instances of minor incoherence issues - possibly because English is not his first language, I don't know - but more concerning is that his reasoning reflects youthful thinking. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing - it is perfectly normal thinking for young intelligent individuals, and I commend the traces of maturity I've see in some of his reasoning, but with all due respect, he is simply not ready to take on the duty of administrator with all of its stress, trials and tribulations which require a patient and highly mature sense of reasoning. I do hope that the co-nominators of this candidate will take the information I've presented into careful consideration. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

7. 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)
8. 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: [6]. 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: [7].) 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)

   @Kirbanzo and others, I highly doubt that Galobtter's comment at Talk:Trypophobia was directed at just one editor, which is why he did not name just one editor. Anyone is free to read that RfC and past discussions on the topic and see that a number of editors have been dismissive of the condition (and sometimes in mocking or other nasty ways), despite reliable sources (including WP:MEDRS-compliant ones) validating the condition. In that RfC, editors can refer to the "Keep in lead and enlarge" vote and commentary beneath it for just one example. I completely understood why Galobtter made the comment he did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

   Admin Ian.thomson has also felt strongly about the topic in the past, and I'm sure also understands Galobtter's comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

   Well, one can either say that no criticism of other editors was intended, or that other editors have been "mocking" or "nasty", but one cannot have it both ways. The RfC has been closed, with consensus in favor of the position taken by those supposedly nasty editors. But my concern isn't about content here. It's about whether there was an issue of "throwing gasoline on a fire", and whether that reflects on a candidate's qualifications for administrator responsibilities. And if the consensus here is that it was just a one-off, that's fine with me, but I feel that I needed to point this out. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

   I know how you feel about the matter, which is why I did not address you specifically. I didn't call the editors nasty. I stated that a number of editors have been dismissive of the condition (and sometimes in mocking or other nasty ways), which is a fact. With sections like these, which canvassed the "Keep in lead and enlarge" vote, there can be no doubt about mocking and other nasty comments on the topic. If there were no dismissive comments, including mocking and other nasty comments, on the topic, Ian.thomson perhaps would not have made the admonishment and harsh comments he made in 2015, at least not to such a passionate degree. Wongba would not have made the comment he made with this edit in 2015. Galobtter would not have made the aforementioned comment. Bonusballs would not have made this comment in the latest RfC. So there is no "supposedly" in this regard. And the RfC closed as no consensus to collapse the image. The closer very clearly did not favor either side. It's also interesting that the closer stated "no consensus at this time." The closer knows that the 2018 RfC will not be the last discussion about that image and that there might be consensus in the future that at least sees that image lower in the article in a gallery while the image is replaced, lead-wise, with a different, less triggering image. And the "How about this idea?" discussion that took place below the RfC came sometime significantly after the RfC started; so a number of people who voted early on seemed to not be aware of that latest suggested option, which is likely to have consensus in the future. Anyway, I don't see that Galobtter threw any gasoline on the fire by calling out dismissive/insensitive behavior or behavior that others viewed as dismissive/insensitive, especially since, for some people, wanting to keep that image in the lead uncollapsed is (in part) due to not personally having experienced the condition and/or having a difficult time taking it seriously, despite all of the odd phobias that exist and that this condition is not just based on fear/disgust...but also negative, involuntary biological reactions. I don't see that Galobtter's comment on the matter should or will affect this RfA. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:36, 4 December 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)

9. 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)

   Athaenara, that diff might be isolated case BLP zealotry, is it just one example from a pattern of behaviour? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

   @SmokeyJoe: While this RfA isn't as bad as some, in that here only 7 out of 18 opposes so far have been harassed interrogated by supporters, I'll never approve of it. Let opposes stand as they are, don't pester them. – Athaenara ✉ 00:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

   That's ridiculous. If you can't justify an oppose !vote with anything other than frivolous rationale, then expect to be "harassed". Believe it or not, RfA is a consensus-based discussion, not a vote. -FASTILY 02:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

   @Fastily: I called it a small example for a reason, that does not make it frivolous. – Athaenara ✉ 06:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

10. 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)
11. Oppose as too soon. Despite nominations from two highly respected administrators I feel that this candidature is too close to political POVing to be safe. Give it more time to show. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC).

    But the candidate has three nominators. Is one of them not respectable? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

12. Strong oppose per concerns that the candidate has too much of a political POV. The redaction mentioned above is particularly concerning. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
13. Oppose - Barely over a year as a Very Active Editor and under 10K edits to mainspace. File under NOTYET. Carrite (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
14. Oppose - per concerns raised above (sorry). GiantSnowman 11:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
15. Strongest possible oppose We don't need more sysops that play politics on Wikipedia. Per Athaenara's diff, candidate will selectively apply BLP policy when it suits their viewpoints. No thank you. I have no confidence in the candidate not to use the tools to enforce a point of view on Wikipedia and I don't know how anyone could believe this candidate is suitable. Not now, not ever. I don't see how someone could be so concerned with the words "wild claims" of lies but completely be okay with unsubstantiated claims of gang rapes - both views being well supported in reliable sources.--v/r - TP 14:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
16. Oppose I don't know that I have ever opposed an RfA, because we really need more good admins. But this editor seems to have major POV issues. If he can show the community at some point in the future that this has changed, I will certainly reconsider. --rogerd (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
17. Oppose Too soon, too focused, and too much POV. Qwirkle (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

    User:Kudpung, I had this editor sumultaneously deny there was a political component to an article we were both working on, and template-bomb me with a DS tag. That goes beyond a mere POV problem, I’d say. Qwirkle (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    As has been pointed out multiple times here, DS templates are highly standardized and are required by policy to only be given as templates. They imply no wrongdoing, and an editor alerting you to sanctions in the area in the way required by policy is not indicative of any POV issues. I regularly give out DS alerts to people engaged in any dispute covered by them, just to let them know to be careful in the topic area. If they noticed that you’d actually edited in the topic area while in a dispute with you, there’s nothing wrong with letting you know about the rules. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    Three points. Been here since well before 2010, so the idea that this was someone helpfully pointing out something I was not aware of is a little shaky. Next, although it is one of Wiki’s Sunday Truths that template-bombing is meant to be helpful, it is routinely taken...and meant...otherwise. More importatly though, the context is all: we have someone denying an obviously politically driven article is political, while dropping the template at the same time. That’s either bad faith or competence problems, just on the face of it. Qwirkle (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    Qwirkle, I hate badgering opposers, and I’m not trying to do that here, but I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying: it is required to use the template {{Ds/alert}} that you were given by the Arbitration Committee in order to make it so that someone is officially aware that discretionary sanctions exist. It doesn’t matter if you actually knew it existed, ArbCom requires that you receive the template before you are considered to know about the sanctions. SMcCandlish, who is in neutral and not a nom, helped redesign the template recently to make them less imposing, and can speak to this better than I can, but I really do think it worth pointing out that unless you’d received an alert with the last 12 months, your example of Galobtter having a major NPOV problem is actually them following policy to the letter. Edit: also, you appear to be referring to the discussion at Talk:Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk, where he specifically states that the book had become a part of the ongoing political drama. He just disagreed with your coatrack tag. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    ...so, you are claiming that Gallobter has even-handedly template bombed everbody in every discussion he participates in.? Will you remove your support if this proves untrue? Qwirkle (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    Why are you asking this question instead of determining whether or not it is true? --JBL (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

    rhetorical questions are a waste of time) First, this isnt a rhetorical question, its an actual one. Next, since TonyBallioni has either funked it, or not noticed it, how would you answer this? Finally, rhetorical questions useless? Pgaughh. Qwirkle (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

    ...and a second one funks it; looks a bit like a pattern. Qwirkle (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

    Indeed, the first draft of the DS templates were actually warnings, and were only for admins to hand out. ArbCom changed this, very much on purpose, made them explicitly nothing but notices that particular rules apply to DS topics, and intended to be used by everyone to spread awareness of DS around (so that DS would work better and, in particular, would not be used against noobs or against people who just happened to wander into a topic area, but only people engaging in focused, topical disruption). They still looked rather officious and ponderous, so they recently got overhauled again to be as neutral and non-threatening as something can be when its purpose is letting people know that a particular topic area is fraught with drama and that admins patrol it more vigorously. I really don't think your objections make much sense here. You've simply completely misunderstood what these templates mean and are for and why and by whom they are used.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    No, I understand what you, and many others, intended it to do, and that some actually use it for that. I also, though, don’t assume that intentions always work out successfully, and don’t assume that wikiteurs always use tools for their higher purposes. When someone comes into an AfD discussion to preserve the work of one of Wiki’s most egregious POV warriors, Cirt/Sagecandor/Notsureofthecurrentsocknymyet, while simultaneously denying it has a political component, dropping a DS-bomb looks a little like gaming the system. Qwirkle (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

    As long as they remain the first step in kicking someone out of a discussion, they remain a warning in many contexts, and as long as wikitrons use them differentially against those who disagree with them, they remain a potential problem. It would be trivial to set up an automatic notice regarding this; leaving it in the hands of POV-pushers lets it be used as a club. Qwirkle (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    So, according to his answer to question 22, the candidate would sanction a person who corrected three newly-introduced errors, if they were on the same page. Lovely. Qwirkle (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

    That answer is directly inline with WP:3RR, and doesn't mention sanctions at all. Bradv🍁 17:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

    Unless you are making a very narrow point about the word “must”, this is precisely the sort of blind rule-mongering that admins are there to counteract. As for not “mention[ing] sanctions at all” what else would an admin do, as an admin? (Using “sanction” here, as before, in the broadest sense.) Qwirkle (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

18. Oppose: I concur in the judgement of Qwirkle, et al. While all of my personal interactions with the candidate have been generally positive, I find the time on Wikipedia and number of edits to be worrisome and, to second Collect, possible signs of a future disappearing administrator. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
19. 'Oppose Per TParis and MONGO. Adminship after only one year of regular editing is problematic enough, but that it was so narrow in scope seals the deal for me. petrarchan47คุก 01:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

    @Petrarchan47: This might make me change my mind. Wow that was an alliteration.--@Boothsift 01:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC) I am no longer considering moving to oppose. --@Boothsift 02:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

    @Boothsift: Have you actually done any of your own homework, or are you expecting others to do it for you? If the latter, you deserve the admin you vote for. petrarchan47คุก 05:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

    @Petrarchan47: Calm down, I was implying that I agreed with you. --@Boothsift 05:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

20. Oppose - I have concerns about POV, poor exercise of judgement with regard to BLP, and their single year of activity. Their answer to Q6 seals it for me. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Per above.--Catlemur (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
22. Oppose. An RFA is not meant to be a pillory. I think that some time proving the nay-sayers wrong would be welcome. There is no deadline and this seems rushed, like another RfA I remember reading back in May 2017. Frankly, one of my sekret, unavowable reasons for opposing is that I'm a bit agist concerning adminship, believing life-experience should count a bit (cf. comments on your userpage), though that's not my only reason for opposing: too soon, npov, zen, etc. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

    Oppose. Slightly reluctantly landing here. My view is that it’s perfectly possible, maybe even likely, that the candidate does not have a POV-pushing problem and that I’m simply taking one or two small incidents and making something that’s not there. However, the prospects of an admin who is simply here to push a POV is too serious for me to take the risk, and the fact is that both the length and focus area of the candidates edits so far don’t give me enough confidence that I’m unjustified in my concerns. So it’s a no for now with a hope that they will try again after gaining longer and wider experience.—Korruski^Talk 15:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

    And less reluctantly per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trader Sam's Enchanted Tiki Bar as highlighted below. A poor nom without satisfying WP:BEFORE mightn’t be a huge deal on its own, but the candidate then dug their heels in on what was pretty clearly an unsupportable position, and did so by attacking a bunch of WP:RS with statements that suggest either a misunderstanding of policy or a willingness to ignore policy to win an argument. Neither is very encouraging.—Korruski^Talk 08:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Struck. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korruski.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

23. Oppose. Not now, lots of concerns as above, unable to support. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
24. Oppose. Editors who lack depth of experience in article creation but adopt an unreasonably deletionist approach worry me. The nominee's proposed deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trader Sam's Enchanted Tiki Bar is a concern. The nominee appears to have nominated Trader Sam's for deletion without satisfying WP:BEFORE and then failed to back down when presented with evidence that the topic satisfied WP:GNG. Other recent AfD noms that worry me (albeit to a lesser extent) include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel O'Brien (comedian) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEMrush, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Hailey Owens, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solium. Cbl62 (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Concerns on POV is worrying for an admin. I would give him a little more time to grow. Anu Raj (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    Dear Anu Raj. The following tool https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=Anuandraj pretends that you could have a grand total of 767 edits on all the Wikimedia wiki, while [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Anuandraj pretends that you have no less than 549 edits here, at en:wp, from your registration on 2009-11-17 19:00. Any more comments about the time to grow ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    Why should they...they are not running for administrator.--MONGO (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    True; but it's a valid question, since their presumed experience is the basis of another's oppose. ——SerialNumber54129 17:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    There is no evidence of this: the comment below says that the author agrees with Anu Raj's reasoning. Pldx1's comment is an example of inane, pointless badgering, and it's worse to see people defending it. (By contrast, there are plenty of non-inane responses to some of the earlier opposes--JBL (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    The cogency of one's reasoning is reflective and concomitant to one's experience in the area. I admit I don't understand what is meant by "pretends" either; that may just be a language thing. ——SerialNumber54129 10:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

    I concur with the badgering label suggested by JBL as well as MONGO's pointed question. We are voting on the readiness of a potential administrator and not the value of a voter casting his view amongst the view of many! I also wonder at the rightful use of the word "pretends" when describing a tool that details another editor's number of edits?Paradies (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

    Dear Pldx1, My edit count and number of years you mentioned are correct. But I don't understand what you meant by "pretends". The voting is supposed to be an exercise of rational discussion on a candidacy. Otherwise it could have been a Support/Oppose ballot with result weighted on the voter’s edit count. With all respect to the nominators and the voters supporting the candidacy, I beg to differ on concerns on POV.Anu Raj (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

    Dear Anu Raj. I was trying to say something like "it is not so rational to play the patriarch card (grow) unless you have a bigger barb". In this context pretends was only intended to say that I was not sure if the figures given by the tool were correct. I was surely not discussing your concerns on POV. Thanks for your calm reply. By the way some not-so-calm intermediary contributions are suggesting that my remark could have found a better place elsewhere. Yes, indeed. Pldx1 (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

26. Oppose. Based on review and agree with the reasoning of Anu Raj, above. Kierzek (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
27. Oppose Narrow editing area (American Politics -32 and AN/I mostly) and short experience in Wikipedia. AP32- is one of the most contentious editing areas, and if his main interest is going to do administrative actions there (AE for example), it's going to be difficult with a colorful editing history there. Although I do think his comments at noticeboards have mostly been reasonable. --Pudeo (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    @Pudeo: The candidate is not intending to do AE in American politics: see their response to Q16, "Well, I certainly would not participate in WP:ARBAP2 arbitration enforcement as an uninvolved admin." You might also like to look at their list of intended areas for admin actions in Q1, which mentions TFD, RFD, revdels and spam-related CSDs. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

    Question: What is "American Politics -32" or "AP32"? – Athaenara ✉ 10:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

    @Athaenara: see WP:ARBAP2, discretionary sanctions for post-1932 US politics, per WP:ARBAPDS  :) ——SerialNumber54129 10:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

    Thanks. – Athaenara ✉ 10:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

28. Oppose. Not enough experience or content creation. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
29. Oppose Not enough time here unfortunately. IWI (chat) 21:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
30. Oppose For someone who has decided to largely ignore content work, I don't trust their admin-scope judgement anywhere near enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
31. Oppose Editing scope was far too narrow, which brings a lot of doubt in terms of what this candidate would perform outside of Donald Trump and US-related topics. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
32. Oppose Not ready. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
33. Oppose Due to the concerns raised here. Limited topic area of work on WP, with POV-concerns and has only really edited for about one year. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
34. Oppose Answer to Question No. 6 by Mr. Ernie shows a complete cluelessness about BLP. Other issues raised above are also troubling. Admins are lifetime appointees and this one doesn't come even close to making the cut for Super User. Coretheapple (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
35. Oppose Per concerns mentioned by others. Relatively little content creation, complaints of POV in the main area of interest, and some other issues that are minor but add to the oppose. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
36. Oppose per some of the POV and BEFORE concerns raised by others. Sorry. — sparklism ^hey! 08:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
37. Oppose - per Coretheapple and others. This editor needs another year at least, as I see it, and I suggest they apply themselves in the various areas mentioned above, and strive to be conscious of NPOV. Jusdafax (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
38. Oppose. The deletionist issues cited by Cbl62 are a major red flag, and the political POV issues cited in Athaenara's diff (coming from an admin, that diff would be dangerously close to censorship) are the final nail in the coffin. I know Wikipedia is desperate for admins and all, but, quite frankly, the amount of support this is getting above is very concerning, on multiple levels. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
39. Oppose — fr ⁺ 09:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
40. Oppose. Preparation for AfD noms and discussion contributions demonstrate less thought than what I would expect in a future admin. Also, if Galobtter had edited a broader range of article topics, it may have allayed my worrying concerns for potential POV editing concerns. Another year or so could provide that background. Loopy30 (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
41. Oppose I was on the line for a while, leaning neutral at first, but the diff cited by User:FR30799386 makes me really wonder about Galobtter's NPOV. I have no problem with Galobtter's time on Wikipedia or number of edits, but the apparent obsession with the Donald Trump article had already made me unsure of their NPOV. I understand that simply editing an article doesn't necessarily mean someone is without NPOV but the comment in the diff cited makes me think otherwise. Pagliaccious (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

    I think it is worth mentioning that, regarding the diff in question placed by FR30799386, Galobtter wrote that on 12 November 2017 (ie: over a year ago) and I'm sure their comment is in relation to the proliferation of Indian schoolboys who (at least in the pre WP:ACPERM era) created autobiographies that were subsequently deleted per WP:CSD#A7. I don't understand what this has to do with Trump, sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

42. Oppose Not now. My interactions with the nominated editor have been few, and I cannot speak to their potential POV or tenure on Wikipedia. It's clear to me that they do have a preoccupation with current politics (which doesn't seem problematic to me), since they suddenly became active at the OK (gesture) article shortly after it was in the news as a result of the hoax reporting about neoNazi symbolism at the Kavanaugh hearings. I was struck by the argument they made for a move proposal at the talkpage. There isn't anything inherently negative about their contentions, but it showed an odd lack of judgment and reasoning that is at odds with what I'd like to see in an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
43. Oppose POV concerns. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
44. Oppose per all of the above. These are concerns that should be addressed before handing someone the mop. This is way too soon. Nihlus 05:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
45. Oppose for now. Galobtter adds content about a poll (with a margin of error of ± 2%) that shows 45% say Trump is racist, to the body and lead of the article: [8], [9] Firstly, that is a cherrypicked number because 40% say, which was omitted and later added by someone else, that is not the case. Secondly, when the addition to the lead is challenged, Galobtter reinstates edits that were challenged[10], without obtaining talk page consensus (as far as I can tell), hence violating page restrictions. Had that been reported to AE, that could have led to a short block/short topic ban/warning/nothing. They were formally warned for breaking 1RR on Donald Trump on December 19, 2017 (probably just an innocent accident and they self-reverted quickly), see WP:DSLOG.
    I would call myself a BLP hard-liner and I think the redaction in Q6 was a slight overreaction. I would consider this minor incident had the candidate not doubled down in their answer. Note that in Q23 they did not say that parts of the discussion need to be redacted. I don't I agree with the claim someone made that the candidate applies BLP selectively, see ex#1, ex#2, ex#3.
    Answer to Q9 is okay, but Galobtter's comment "All BLP would require is such a thing be well sourced which it undoubtedly is" does not show great understanding of BLP or its spirit: all BLP material should be strictly adhere to NPOV and WP:BLPSTYLE applies to all BLP material. This suggestion that there is "silent consensus" (inherited from another article) against removing disputed content in a freshly created article[11] is silly.
    They seem to have some troubles identifying reliable sources: (a) "That article is definitely not an opinion piece"[12] – the source is labeled "analysis", which is also obvious when one reads the article, and per WP:NEWSORG treatement of analysis is similar to opinion pieces. (b) "Both sources are fine for opinion pieces"[13] – the first source is HuffPost contributor blog post, essentially a self-published source. (c) "add many soucres"[14] – citing a NYT columnist.
    Answer to Q22 is incorrect. Reverts have to be the same material: "It does have to be the same material."[15]
    I find it curious that Galobtter writes in their essay that a RFA candidate should not be forced to do networking, yet that is exactly what they have done very effectively.
    Based on what I have seen, I think Galobtter is an excellent editor who, in general, bases their editing strictly on policies and guidelines. They can be persuased with new arguments and sources, which is rare. They are capable of learning from their mistakes and if this RFA fails, I would likely support them the next year. Politrukki (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

    ..."... if this RFA fails ..." - given it's currently marked "pending closure" by a bureaucrat at 82% support, if it does fail I predict a drama fest from hell. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

46. Oppose Pending Closure is purely advisory. Given the consistent concerns about POV, a period of 3-4 months followed by a retry will ease the concerns which have been widely expressed. Leaky Caldron 12:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

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)Moved to oppose—Korruski^Talk 15:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

1. 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)
2. 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)
3. 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)

   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) Struck and moved to Support Nosebagbear (talk)

   Neutral at this time. I don't think 25K edits is anywhere near too small a number (I've been criticized before for daring to suggest a 10K minimum!) I also sharply disagree with the criticisms about giving out {{Ds/alert}} templates. We're supposed to do that, and it doesn't take an admin to do it. They are not threats or warnings, they're notices to people in a DS content area that DS apply there. (We do tend to give them out in response to behavior that might actually trigger the DS being applied, but that's immaterial. Some of you may recall that earlier this year I proposed we have a bot auto-deliver these notices to everyone active in such a topic, but that proposal died with only about 50% support, so we are in fact left with the consensus status quo: that editors should deliver these templates when they appear to be needed by particular recipients.)

   However, both lack of recent consistent activity, and some temperament complaints give me pause, as does lack of new content creation. I think it would be better to work on building the encyclopedia for a year and to avoid drama (including that focus on a particular area of constant conflict – it's not like the Trump articles don't already have a huge pile of watchlisters) and try again. I'm not sure if this nomination is going anywhere this time, but I actually do think that Galobtter can rise to the adminship challenge pretty soon-ish. I do not always agree with this editor, but they seem reasoning and reasonable, just not always quite as temperate as we hope for in admins [says that intemperate guy], nor as focused on WP:ENC as we expect – so far, and that's easy to change.
    — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
   Moving to support.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

4. Neutral leaning support. I have to look more closely into this candidate but I did want to say that I think some of the Opposes are unreasonable and focusing on small matters, either a solitary interaction or arbitrary criteria that doesn't have much to do with the work admins do. I get that many editors are afraid of admins running amok but I think in the rare cases when that happens, there are ones fellow admins who speak up as well as ArbCom. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Parking for the time being here. I had a recent interaction with the candidate, which was due to this edit. This was a contentious discussion, with arguments from both sides, and it just can not be closed without a rationale. When I brought it to the attention of the candidate, they added the rationale (which I disagree with, for the record, but this is fine and this is not why I am here). My conclusion is that the job was initially done poorly. If I have more time during the nomination (which is unlikely), I will check how characteristic is for the candidate to close contentious discussions without a close rationale. May be it was just an isolated episode. Otherwise, it looks like they are on their way to be elected administrator, I wish them success and hope they will take my comment on board.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I don't know about 25K edits being too small, because that's a lot. I think Galobtter is an exceptional editor, especially in regards to template maintenance, and I've seen his name around Trump-related topics. On the other hand, he doesn't seem to have much content creation, with low main-space edit counts. Anyway, I'll have to think about it. epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
7. Neutral leaning support I don't think the edit count is a problem. I have over 31K edits myself and the majority is made up from September 2017. But, I would like to see more global contributions and maybe more mainspace edits (33% is a bit too small) before I can support. However, I have seen a lot of high-quality work in the template space so it all looks good apart from the two things I have said above. Otherwise, I am leaning support but I am unsure for now. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
8. Neutral based solely on his answer about 2FA. I need assurance from any candidate now that they are most definitely going to be enabling 2FA, not a maybe. If you ask for permissions on your account (regardless of your strong, unique password) you should take every measure you can. A follow-up that they most definitely will would sway me. — Moe Epsilon 02:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

   With respect, I rarely text (which is the only way 2FA currently works on WP; other platforms permit authentication by email). Guess that means I should be desysopped :-). All the best, Miniapolis 16:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

   That's not true. I have 2FA enabled and I am not an administrator or advanced permission holder. Anyone can request it at Meta. In addition to that you don't need a smartphone, either. Wikipedia:Simple 2FA. I also didn't say anyone should be desysopped if they didn't have 2FA enabled; I said future candidates should be reassuring us they are doing everything they can to secure their accounts once they go from a normal user to an administrator. — Moe Epsilon 18:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

   @Miniapolis: Wikipedia 2FA has nothing to do with text messages. Codes are generated by an offline program running either on your computer or on a phone. Wikipedia has no ability to text or email log in codes. --Ahecht (TALK
   PAGE) 18:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

   Thanks, although I disagree that WP 2FA is almost entirely text-based. I'm glad the Windows option is available, though. Miniapolis 23:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

9. Neutral mainly due to quite limited content creation, narrow area of interest, and only being active for a year. In my view, real experience in content creation and guiding an article through the various classes (at least to GA) is necessary to really understand the content creators you are going to be policing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
10. Neutral I've watched the discussion unfold now for several days. There have been very valid arguments raised by both supporters and opposition. While I believe that the candidate would be a net positive, I can't ignore some of the issues raised against them that do give me some cause for concern. If this request succeeds, I would hope that the candidate will take the opposing comments to heart and be mindful of them while performing their administrative duties. Good luck. Strikerforce^Talk 16:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
11. Neutral Even many of those who are in support mention the short time s/he's been active, so I'm going neutral. Kieron (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
12. Neutral leaning oppose. It does seem awfully soon for adminship without greater variety in activities such as article creation. I lean oppose because some persuasive arguments regarding problems such POV and BEFORE raise concerns. Several of the oppose votes seem a bit irrational, which might be a reason to discount the meat of what those have to say but does make me concerned about why this editor has drawn such interest. There are many reasons to believe this editor has great admin potential, but also reasons to believe the person could make a controversial admin. In the course of writing this out, I've nearly persuaded myself to change vote to oppose. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 03:45, 6 December 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)

His oppose is based on the reasons he clearly laid out. Very policy-based reasons, too.--v/r - TP 14:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I'm not sure I understand your point. I am basing my oppose partly on this interaction with Galobtter. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:46, 3 December 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)

  @331dot: Hi. I think Andrew Davidson asked that question out of curiosity. I dont think he wanted to base his opinion about the candidate based on the question/answer. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  Maybe, but it's a question that user asks at almost every nomination and they rarely if ever support any nomination. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 2 December 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)

• @Atsme:So going off those in that % range, there was no one particular skill set - usually the non creation-heavy admins had at least 2 areas they were particularly good at (AfD, NPP, CSD etc etc). Now a lot of those, while in that % terms, had many more overall edits so edits were a lesser issue. However Ansh666 RfA makes a good comparison, since he actually has (even now) about 3000 fewer mainspace edits. While this did generate opposition, his AfD and CSD skillsets successfully offset that (you !voted "Support- we need good AfD closers, and Ansh indicates a healthy attitude for closes and redirect"). In a rough comparison, Galobtter's primary skillsets are probably: Templates, CSD & (to a lesser degree) his work in controversial areas. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Good work, Nosebagbear! Thank you! Templates are a plus, but not enough to overcome what I consider a lack of experience or problematic POV issue; the latter of which doesn't help neutralize or improve the workflo in controversial areas. I have made it a priority when reviewing candidates for positions of authority that they have good judgment, make reasonable, common sense decisions and are trustworthy. Past behavior, when they're not under the microscope, will reflect whether or not a candidate has the desired qualities we expect from our sysops, or if there is potential, especially considering that sysops hold a ban hammer and act as the judge and jury in determining the fate of an editor's future on WP. Block and ban logs are forever, as I explained in this Signpost op-ed. I think perhaps this candidate does have potential, and perhaps with more experience will improve, but that remains to be seen. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:59, 1 December 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)

  According to Merriam-Webster, 4. conceived or made without regard for reason or reality: some wild claim that he was abducted by aliens (emphasis mine). Sorry but that was a BLP violation. wumbolo ^^^ 09:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Wumbolo: But the very next example is "5. different from the ordinary in a way that causes curiosity or suspicion: public speakers in the park typically spout some wild ideas". In this case, it's probably not a BLP violation. It's not quite so clear-cut.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Deacon Vorbis: what was "different from the ordinary" here? There are many gang rape accusations every day, as can be seen from a Google News search. Yes, the speakers in the park talk about crazy cults and predictions about the end of the world, but I don't see how that can be applied here. wumbolo ^^^ 14:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  Really? You really can't see how unsubstantiated claims of gang rapes over years happened without anyone getting caught and mum's the word until now? And claims of crazy cults, end of the world predictions, and aliens happen every day. Gang rape claims do not.--v/r - TP 14:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Comment: Several people have said they are concerned he might become a POV pusher at political articles - and now some are even saying that he has “major POV issues” right now. Yet no one has produced any evidence to support that notion, except for one questionable redacting of part of someone else’s comment. Let me just say that for more than a year now I have observed him contributing to many of the most contentious political articles on Wikipedia. There are indeed some editors at those articles who edit from a particular point of view or show a political bias, and whose nomination for adminship I would oppose for that reason. But Galobtter is not one of them. If commenters here are assuming that everyone who edits at political articles must be enforcing a POV, that is simply not true. It's true there are some people at those articles whose political viewpoint affects their editing, but there are many others who have no particular opinion about American politics, or who are able to keep their editing neutral in spite of it. Many of the “regulars” are not even Americans, so they have no political bias to enforce. And some are simply there because they find it interesting, or because they want to make sure the article stays in line with Wikipedia policies. I strongly object to any assumption that everyone who edits at political articles must have some kind of disqualifying political agenda. Based on my extensive experience at American political articles over the last several years, that is simply not the case. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Editing Donald Duck would have been safer than editing Donald Trump! Pldx1 (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I'm struck that while there are some raising those concerns, there's now also a heterogeneous group of people that I know often sharply disagree with one another within AmPol (and environs--I'm usually only at the fringes of the subject, but overlap a little through BLP and culture topics) here agreeing that Galobtter is a straight shooter. That seems like a remarkably positive sign. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

---

I'm not trying to talk people out of good faith opposition, but I would ask editors to consider that we are losing admins faster than we are gaining them and if we can afford to be very discriminating here. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Some areas could use more admin assistance to reduce backlogs, but not seeing any reason to elect editors with (in my opinion) inadequate tenure and quality of edits just to help flesh out the ranks. Now seeing so many opposes citing POV issues (which I also have suspected but decided to not harp on that initially), I'm of the thinking that this nominee should be asked if they plan on recusing on administrative level actions on American Politics issues.--MONGO (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. His supporters specifically address this issue and say he shouldn't have to. A pledge would've gone a long way, but seeing as he's well within auto-promote range, expecting that level of introspection won't happen.--v/r - TP 14:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@TParis: I thought that was what happened in Q16, but maybe I'm reading between the lines too much. Are you looking for a broader and more explicit recusal? ~Awilley (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to add: I have been editing at U.S. political articles for several years without complaint. It is my intention, if this RfA is successful, to counsel Galobtter about how I handle the "involved" issue - basically, that I point out, as often as necessary, that I am editing as a regular editor rather than an admin; that I take no admin actions at those articles or their talk pages except in cases of blatant vandalism, where I may apply page protection and/or revdel; and that I disclose my involved-ness if I comment at a drama board. Also to kind of serve as a mentor on that one issue to the extent needed. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

That's basically the same thing that I do at religion articles. It's something I'd have done anyway, but it was formalized in my RfA in a response to a question from non other than TParis. ~Awilley (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley and MelanieN: The answer is Q16 is weird. They commit to not getting involved in AE, but their next sentence isn't clear. They say they have strong political opinions but wouldn't preemptively consider themselves involved? MelanieN's position is generally the one I adhere to as well. I think my reputation on Wikipedia is more right-leaning than the reality is, but for the people on this site that is the reality so I respect the perception and reputation I've gained even if I do feel it's unfair. I'd expect that level of introspection from the candidate as well - which is no more than I require of myself. Clearifying their Q16 answer might help.--v/r - TP 19:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

every time I see "fix ping" on my watchlist with one or two bits changed, I know this happened. Re-pinging User:Awilley; @TParis:, FYI, the ping has to happen the same edit as your signature or the ping doesn't work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@TParis: On the confusing sentence you mention, I read it, "and for other areas [outside of American Politics] I wouldn't preemptively consider myself involved". Yes, it could use clarification. ~Awilley (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

---

• Comment. To those who are critical of this candidate because of his edit count, I would just point to a recent successful Rfa, which I did not support - that candidate had 9,000 fewer edits than the present candidate, and I was taken to task for calling this "low". Deb (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Deb, for further clarification to your statement, the RfA to which you refer is an editor who (according to his nominator) "has created multiple articles, including a GA and half a dozen DYKs. His articles are very well written; please take a look at one or two of them! He is a longtime clerk at both ArbCom and SPI. Due to his work in those two areas he has an unusually good understanding of policy, and from working so closely with many admins he has also learned good judgment in applying policy." In other words, the experience he brought to the table in areas where it counts most (clerking for ArbCom and SPI) overcame the low edit count, although he did create 7 articles, including a GA, 3 C class, and 3 starts, plus the DYKs to his credit. There is no comparison. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't need clarification, thanks. I feel it is an appropriate comparison. Deb (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• The clarification was meant for whoever is interested in being an informed voter, and was not directed to anyone in particular. I'll also add that there were 240 supports to 4 opposes for candidate L235 - so in my view, there simply is no comparison between the 2 candidates, and I'll leave it at that. Happy editing!! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I also want to add for clarity Galob's rather low # of edits to mainspace and why so many believe he lacks experience where experience is needed most - to date he has 8,435 edits in mainspace, and the next highest at 5,040 in WP space, the bulk of which are at WP:ANI & WP:AN - so look at the breakdown, not the total of 26,692. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Perhaps this explanation will bring more clarity as to why this candidate is not ready to take on the role of administrator. 15:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Not since the 60's in industry, possibly earlier, has length of exprience been an indication of capability. This counts as much here as it does everywhere else. There is no link. scope_creep^Talk 02:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.