Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GreenMeansGo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

GreenMeansGo[edit]

Final (169/60/8); ended 15:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs) – There have been a few people who have offered to nominate me over the last little while, and I'll let them self-identify if they want to. But I guess I kind of feel like my record should maybe stand or fall on its own two feet. I'm fine with being an admin and I'm fine just being a regular editor, but I think I can probably help out with some things that need helping with, so here I am. I mostly just want to be useful however I can be useful.

To get it out of the way, I had a name change last year. The beginning and end of it is that my wife asked me to and I said yes. I'm not trying to hide anything and I'm fine with people linking to diffs of my old username. I've identified to the WMF twice, so it's not like it's a secret or anything. I registered my first account in 2008 and abandoned it mostly because I found not much of a community and no real reason to not edit anonymously. I've never edited for pay, although I've been propositioned and have declined. GMGtalk 23:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw - Thanks for the support from everyone who supported, and to everyone for their honest feedback no matter which camp you fell into. I apologize for mostly wasting a lot of community time, and I'll try my best to pay back that debt that I owe. GMGtalk 15:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: What would give me the most personal satisfaction is being able to help folks without needing to bother anyone else. I'm no stranger to the "I can't see your deleted article, but here is some generic advice..." or the "This will need a histmerge/deleted make-way-for-move redirect/etc and so we'll need to find someone to do it..." type discussions. I'm also no stranger to shamelessly bothering others to do uncontroversial button pushing that I could probably well do myself. I do try to commit a certain amount of time on project maintenance tasks, because it needs to be done. I'm probably fine answering reports at WP:AIV, WP:PERM requests for autopatrolled, requests for WP:AfC access, going through most WP:CSD noms, and answering requests for revision deletion for WP:COPYVIO and egregious WP:BLP violations. I'm more involved with Commons as far as images go, but I could probably well do the most uncontroversial of file deletions, like non-free-reduce WP:F5s. But I realize I don't know everything and never will, and would like to think I'm fairly prompt at seeking input from, or deferring to others when I start to get outside my circle of competence.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm pretty proud of this picture and this picture, both of which have stories if anyone's interested. I'm proud of being part of both the discussion that changed the orientation of the Teahouse, and the discussion that moved the actual Teahouse over the landing page, both of which I believe were changes that benefited new editors. I'm proud of helping to make WP:NOTLAB into a blue link, because I think it's helpful. I've gotten content on the front page a few times, but mostly I just whittle away in the background. Most of my work is in late 19th Century US history (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7), parks (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5) and then just randomness (e.g., 1, 2).
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: I mostly mediate conflicts where I'm a third party. If a dispute becomes protracted I like to think I have a pretty low bar for disengaging and just going to work on something else, because that something else is usually more productive than arguing over any one thing in particular. Time is limited and pretty much everything is a cost benefit analysis. Overall, I'm fine with losing disputes, when I could be working productively somewhere else instead, rather than prolonging a losing or even a winning battle. I'm pretty much just here to help write the encyclopedia my daughter will read.

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 Cryptic
4. Carlisle Homes and Urban Produce, LLC, as discussed here - if you'd had the appropriate buttons, would you have deleted either or both of these directly, rather than just tagging them db-g11 as you did? Would you have handled them any differently had you stumbled across them in NPP/Special:Randompage/CAT:CSD-after-someone-else-tagged-them/whatever, rather than having seen them identified as probable TOU violations?
A: No, I think Dloh had the right of it. Bish is an experienced admin, and clearly thought they should have gone PROD rather than going G11. I disagreed, but the best option was to nominate and let someone pick them out of the queue in a vacuum and decide like they would with any article. Had I been the one to pull them out of the queue in a vacuum, I would have deleted them as obvious advertisements, which is why I nominated them for the same. GMGtalk 10:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Isaacl
5. Given your proposal to initiate community-based bans on using administrative privileges, as an administrator, do you plan to take a role in closing these types of ban discussions and enforcing any resulting bans?
A: As the person who kindof originated the idea AFAIK, no I would not close such a discussion were it to come up. Doing so would be almost be akin to promoting my own idea. Although I would be fine proposing it if the situation arose. If we actually had such a case where an admin was sufficiently out of line with community norms to warrant consensus for admin probation, and yet ArbCom was unwilling to act in any meaningful way, it would be a very important precedent setting scenario, and highly likely to come up for review at ArbCom one way or the other. In such a case, even the appearance of impropriety could be detrimental in a fundamental way. GMGtalk 11:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Javert2113
6. Could you please give an example of how you would use a promotional username soft-block as compared to a promotional username hard-block? Thank you.
A: I would defer to the advice of TonyBallioni that I read at some point, which was to avoid soft blocks prior to them having edited anything, and instead issue hard blocks after they've confirmed that they have a promotional user name, and they're editing only for the purpose of promotion. I'm not a fan of paid editing, and that's not an artifact of any type of high-minded idealism, but simply because it wastes an inordinate amount of community time. Half our article are stubs, and if possible, that's where we should be working, rather than cleaning up unnecessary messes from marketers. GMGtalk 11:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from John Cline
7. Please tell me about this RfC greeting, and the follow on comments. I initially felt it was a bit out of character, for my having seen you in many discussions as a pure wordsmith. Perhaps it is wordsmanship at its best? Tell me how it describes you as well, in collaborative terms? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
A: I think the metaphor I eventually landed on on my talk page is probably a good one. This is a community garden. We have places for people who like to pick weeds. We have places for people who like to grow vegetables. We have places for people who just want to nerd out and get really in depth testing the pH of the soil. But if you find yourself spending most of your time expressing an opinion on the hue of the tomatoes, and you look down and there's no dirt under your fingernails, then you need to find the closest hoe or spade and get digging. The digging is what means my daughter won't need a 20 year old World Book missing three volumes like I had, because she has access to the most valuable resource for free knowledge in the history of our species. That's...the metric I judge basically everything by. GMGtalk 11:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Chris troutman
8. One editor supporting your candidacy admires your aplomb dealing with me in your first GA review (which was successful) in late 2016. You went on to have two more successful GA noms so I'm curious what, if anything, you learned from what they call "an unnecessarily adversarial GA review". Chris Troutman (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A: Hey Chris. Actually, in retrospect, I really appreciate your adversarial approach. I don't think civility means that everyone has to agree on everything. In fact I think it's really important to have spirited disagreement, so long as it is focused on improving the encyclopedia. The primary reason I nominated articles for GA and FA wasn't to get the bling, but to learn what writing a GA or an FA looks like. I think my nominations did a pretty good job at that and improved my writing tremendously. I haven't looked twice at an ISBN 10 since my FA to be sure, and there were a lot of things I had never considered, like consistency in using |author= vs |last= |first=, that now I do without even thinking about. And so I think it was all a good use of my time. GMGtalk 11:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Hhhhhkohhhhh
9. Will you deal with or handle some SPI cases? Why or why not?
A: Well...I'm only barely involved with SPI as it is. I don't see myself ever applying for something like CU, because I pretty much lack the technical expertise to probably use it effectively. My single biggest shortcoming as an editor is probably far and away that I'm basically technologically inept. I only got a smartphone a few years ago to be honest, and using wiki markup is basically the most technically advanced thing I know how to do. I didn't even transclude my own RfA, and instead asked on IRC for someone else to do it, because I was pretty sure I would screw it up somehow. But that's just not my strength. There's a reason my graduate work was in community based social work, and it's because I gravitate more toward team building and coalition forming. That's a lot of why I like Wikipedia. GMGtalk 12:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from xaosflux
10. Regarding your statement, I registered my first account in 2008 and abandoned it, when (e.g. in what year) did you abandon use of that account? — xaosflux Talk 18:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A:Umm...I presume whenever I stopped editing with it. It wasn't a conscious decision to abandon it. It was an absence of a decision to log back in. At the time IIRC I was attending Western Kentucky University and didn't even have a personal computer, so I had to use the computer lab for school. I spent a few all nighters in that computer lab. But I of course looked up the Wikipedia article for whatever I was writing about, and I happened to have sources available for things like the Older Americans Act, because I was a social work major writing about social work things. So I helped to write the Wikipedia article while I was doing my homework. GMGtalk 18:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Wumbolo
11. Regarding your speedy deletion nomination (diff) of "CT examinations", would you change anything if you were an administrator?
A: Oh no that was silly. Just dumb. No idea what was going on that would make me nominate that for CSD. But draftifying was the correct option. GMGtalk 22:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As that was about a year ago I shan't hold it against you. Not sure that shouldn't be A10'd. But different users will have different views of pages. That's why I rarely delete pages I find and just tag them for checks-and-balances.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:A10 says: This criterion should be used only if its title could be speedy deleted as a redirect. "CT examinations" seems like a plausible redirect to CT scan. wumbolo ^^^ 11:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, but I feel like there's an appropriate amount of IAR going on in this question. Kudos. GMGtalk 12:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Question from Jbhunley
12. Are you willing to have a binding recall procedure? (By binding I mean that a) If someone wants to invoke the procedure you will allow them to and if the result is a finding of "loss of confidence" you will resign/re-RfA and b) You will always maintain a recall procedure. If you change your recall procedures any new procedure will be binding.)
A: If there is a thread closed at AN or ANI where there is a consensus among uninvolved editors who feel that I've screwed up so badly that I've lost the confidence of the community to not screw things up in the future, then absolutely. The crats can quote me on that, link to this diff, and remove it without consulting me. I hereby make that a personal policy applicable only to me. I'd like to have my current permissions back please, mostly because I'm used to them and it's really confusing having different sets of permissions like file mover or rollback on Commons than I have on enwiki...and I tend to wonder where my normal buttons went when I don't have them. But I won't drag the community through a protracted ArbCom case for my sake, because I'm not worth it. I absolutely hate in a visceral way that being an admin is a status symbol, when it's supposed to be a janitorial role. It is the role of a servant. You serve, and when you're not wanted to serve any longer you go do something else instead. That should be the standard. Maybe this will start a trend, and this can become one of the standard questions in the future. I think we'd be better off as a community if it were. So I'll put my money where my mouth is. GMGtalk 16:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Jbh Talk 16:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Kirbanzo
13. Do you plan on actively monitoring WP:AIV? It is an important job of administrators to block those who vandalize persistently.
A: Hey Kirbanzo. Yes, I expect I can do fairly well at monitoring AIV. I'm usually online most of the time, and there are few things on the project where you feel more helpless than waiting for an AIV report to be answered while trying to grapple with a particularly active vandal. It is definitely one of the more time sensitive areas of the project more so than many others, where promptness is very valuable, and unresponsiveness can be very discouraging. GMGtalk 15:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Lourdes
14. This is the 14th question and I think it's already too many questions asked; so I would say in advance that you don't need to answer this query. I have noticed that you use the edit summary "unhelpful comment" or "unhelpful reply" often while replying to editors or while commenting at forums. I have been confused a couple of times when you've replied to me with this summary, assuming you're alluding to my reply being unhelpful. I believe this may be the case with other editors too perhaps (or not); possibly could confuse newbies more. I'm not particular about asking you to change this style of edit summary; but am curious about why you use this summary? (Answer this only if you have have time as I completely understand the personal issues that have cropped up and wish they get sorted out asap; like I said, this can be ignored).
A: Hey no worries. That's often just a dry attempt at mildly self-deprecating humor, meaning that I'm mostly adding tangentially related banter, as in this comment. Sometimes it's literal, as in this comment, where I honestly didn't feel like I gave the best explanation, but gave the best explanation I could. Not at all intended to be a commentary on anyone else's comments, and sorry if I gave that impression. No concerns about asking extra questions goes, and thanks for letting me know that it struck you as off. I'll try to pay more attention to context going forward to try not to give the wrong impression using those kinds of summaires. GMGtalk 03:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Galobtter
15. When would you say it is appropriate to unblock an editor without consulting the blocking admin or gaining consensus from the community?
A: Hmm...without consulting the blocking admin at all? I struggle to find a situation where that would be well within accepted community norms in a way that I would be comfortable with. I guess if you had a situation where someone blocked a malfunctioning bot, and you had assurances that the problem had been fixed. But I'm not really tech savvy enough to be able to tell if it was really fixed or not, and would probably defer to someone else instead.
Without consulting the community? I mean, I've definitely seen several cases where there wasn't a thread at a place like AN, and a group of admins found a local consensus on the user's talk to unblock, and it was enacted by usually the most experienced of them. But that's usually in cases where the blocking admin is unavailable, or where they just say that they're fine with whatever the local consensus is either way. But even then, you have some consensus to point to and say why you did what you did, and we do probably most of our heavy lifting overall with local consensus anyway project wide.
As to Elisa, since that seems to be what this is getting at...I first met Elisa at the Teahouse AFAIK, and I was pleased to find that she quickly became an every-day type editor, which my experience and statistics shows us is comparatively rare and valuable. I tried my best to encourage her. I missed her first block all together somehow, and was only reminded of it when she was blocked a second time. As far as I know, I never actually asked anyone to unblock her. In my discussion with Fram, my request was that people would please take a few days off of nominating things for deletion over issues like notability, because I knew she was discouraged, and felt ganged up on, and at that point honestly didn't want to be unblocked at all. She wanted to leave and never come back. I don't want our every-day editors to leave and never come back. I spend a lot of time trying to convince people to stay. I want to fix the problems and go build an encyclopedia together.
I spent about 5,000 words on her talk page trying to explain what the problems were and get her to understand, and I was never of the opinion that anyone should unblock her at all until the problems were fixed, and she wanted to come back, and she asked to do so. The problem of getting her to want to come back was as challenging as the problem of explaining the issues that got her blocked. Copyright can be complicated, and there's no way to make it any simpler than the law, which is complicated in all but the most egregious of cases. The concept of close paraphrasing is foreign to most people. Most non-editors don't understand the difference between rewording and rewriting, or the difference between publicly available and public domain. They have no reason as non-editors to ever care about it any more than they care about...I dunno...regulatory oversight of plastics production. And research shows us that the single biggest barrier to retaining especially female editors, at least according to the editors themselves, is an adversarial environment where newer editors feel bullied and ganged up on.
I spent the next two months over email (happy to dig up and provide to ArbCom) continuing to try to accomplish both of those things. Maybe I'm wrong and someone can dig up the diff, or it's hidden in an email chain, but my intention was never to proxy edit for her at all, and AFAIK I mostly or entirely refused to do so despite multiple requests, because I didn't want her to edit by proxy, I wanted her to understand the problem and want to come back and fix it.
I don't really know if I failed miserably in all that or not. She's not blocked anymore, but she really hasn't rejoined the community yet. But I'd do it all again, because it was the right thing to do, and because the community isn't sustained through inevitability; it's sustained through a lot of people who work really hard to be really welcoming, and even when they find themselves answering the same question for the 71st time, because it was asked by a 71st person, and that person isn't any less valuable than the 70th. GMGtalk 10:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. Editor retention, and working hard at it, is important, certainly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Bellezzasolo
16. Hi, this is my first RfA question, so please be patient! I'm in the support column, and a non-answer won't change that (but a bad one might!). With the large number of opposes base on the neo-nazi incident, how would you handle things differently, given the mop?
A: Well, the point I was trying to get at a few days ago, and maybe one that makes more sense in a broader context, is that when I come across a new editor who makes a good faith attempt at communicating, I do my best to treat them as a new editor first and foremost. We have POV pushers of all flavors, not least of which are people who come here solely for the purpose of advertising. Many of them won't get their way. Many of them will be blocked. Many will never come back, and many we don't really want to, because they're operating primarily in bad faith. But even when someone shows up on my talk page after I've nominated their article for G11, I still make a good faith attempt to explain to them why, rather than simply telling them to trod off or ignoring them, and I try to point out that if they ever decide to come back and write about things they're interested in, rather than to advertise, then I'm more than willing to help them do that, because I am.
In an even broader sense, I don't think you assemble a workplace of 300,000 people and wind up with 300,000 moderates, and no one with far right or far left political views. I'm not one of them. I'm a dyed in the wool centrist, which often just means that a lot of people are pretty sure I'm rooting for the other team, regardless of whether they're on the right or the left, and sometimes both at the same time. But I would not be surprised if a good many of those people who do hold more extreme views than I do, never show up on our radar at all, because it turns out they're interested in plants or theater, pickup trucks or anime, and although they hold those views, they don't let them be the driving force behind their editing, because they know how to operate in a workplace, and they treat it like a workplace, just like most people do in the real world.
Was I right two years ago? No. I was pretty spectacularly and publicly wrong. And in my experience, being publicly and spectacularly wrong, especially for newer users, is how most people wind up learning. Was I defending that individual decision today? No. I was trying and failing to make a related point, and one which I tried and failed to make so narrowly that it gave the wrong impression. How will I do things differently? Well, I can't say I won't ever give someone the wrong impression. But all I can do is be the first on the floor apologizing when I've offended someone, and try to explain myself more carefully and clearly in a way that they will hopefully understand. GMGtalk 20:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from George Ho
17. Do you have issues with any policies and guidelines? If so, why?
A: Well I do wish that we could get WP:NAC into a full fledged guideline one day, rather than being spread out piecemeal over multiple pages. I done a bit of work on it but it's still probably not ready yet. I do wish we could find a way to tighten some of our more permissive SNGs to be more in line with GNG, and find a way that would get broad consensus and buy-in from the community. I don't really have any bright ideas for how to do that personally, and I'm not totally convinced that it's even a net positive at this point, when you consider that any changes may require substantive retroactive cleanup that would consume a large amount of time, for probably a comparatively marginal improvement in the encyclopedia as a whole. Similarly if we had been talking about this 15 years ago, I would have strongly supported something like five year term limits for admins, but today it's just a complete logistical nightmare, and completely undoable as far as I can tell.
This is more meta probably, but relates to your question below. I've expressed this opinion to the WMF in the past, and I know that the WMF is generally an apolitical organization, but I do wish they could consider becoming active in lobbying regional and national governments everywhere to release their official works into the public domain as the US government does. I think that would make a massive and longstanding difference in accomplishing the goal of making more knowledge more free for more people, even if we could only make it happen for a few comparatively small governments. Even a small government puts out a pretty large amount of media and documents over the course of their lifetime that we could use to great effect.
But I think that our policies and guidelines are overall in good shape, and that's evidenced by the valuable thing we've all helped to build together using them. But for any of them, even if I might find small things I think can probably be eventually improved, I think respecting the underlying foundation of consensus is more important than whether there are small disagreements over what's built on top of it. You can always remodel the kitchen if you get buy-in from the people who share the home, but you can't try to dig up the foundation unless you want to risk losing large pieces of the house in the process.
18. What is your stance on copyrights of any medium?
A: My main stance is that it's really complicated. I spent I think about 20 minutes a while ago trying to figure out if official works of the Bangladesh government we're public domain. They're not, at least not immediately, and I did get an addition to COM:CRT out of it (also added footnote for context). But there are few if any other areas of the project where being completely and utterly lawyerly is not just not-discouraged, but absolutely unflinchingly required, and I think that's a huge barrier for new editors, because it has to be done right, and it has to be done right all the time. Unfortunately the only thing we can do about that is to hope for another multi-national treaty that helps to standardize copyright law across jurisdictions and deal with it as best we can in the meantime. You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, at least not if you want to get anything meaningful done, and getting good things done is more important than trying to make the world perfect.
Additional question from There'sNoTime
19. A key trait of our administrators is that of learning from experiences. This RfA has definitely been an "experience" so far - in your own words, regardless of how the RfA goes, what 'lessons' will you be taking away from this?
A: Well, the entire process is much more stressful than I thought it would be. I was fairly easy going for the first little while, and by yesterday I was in the hospital because I'd thrown out my back. (I...guess I can provide documentation of that to ArbCom in case it matters.) I was entirely too confident that I would pass based on the opinions of the people who had offered to nominate me in the past, and the encouragement of others, and I see that I was wrong to think that.
There were definitely a few areas of the project, where I knew I wasn't perfect, but I figured I was still overall probably a net positive. But it's fairly apparent that I was wrong, and should probably just stay away from those areas in the future, since I'm not helpful when I contribute in them. There are areas where I've felt over time that in dealing with users who are highly experienced at nuanced debate, that being blunt was an asset in encouraging frank discussion. I see that there too I was wrong.
I felt that I had a pretty good track record for defending, disagreeing or agreeing with people based on an assessment of their arguments, and not who they were, or whether we'd had positive or negative interaction in the past. I did not think that would be interpreted based on an old comment to mean that I was at fault for defending one group in particular; although that was greatly exacerbated by my own inappropriate comments, which were over-the-top and unwarranted.
Overall, I hope no one in the oppose camp opposes so strongly that it would prevent us from working together in the future, and I'll do my best to make good on the feedback that they've donated their time to providing. GMGtalk 15:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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

Support[edit]
  1. Support Great editor, good contribution history. Helps out at the Teahouse. I think they'd do very well with sysop permissions. Vermont (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I still have a positive first impression of GMG. After digging, I still support. Yes, he's slightly deletionist at AfD. But after all, the point of AfD is for cases where there might be disagreement. Otherwise, a CSD or PROD suffice. Unfortunately, GMG doesn't log those, so I'd have to defer to an admin who can see deleted contribs. However, their attitude is friendly, which is worth more than any statistics. They're perfectly willing to withdraw AfD nominations - I have done so myself. We should all be familiar with WP:HEY. As for being heavily more involved in delete discussions than keep - it's called "a mop" for a reason - the job of admins is to clean up the proverbial that's thrown at us by advertisers. I have no concerns with GMG being an admin. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC), ammended 21:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Still supporting. Per the answer to question 15, it seems to me like, although GMG may disagree with a block, he will respect it. I'm happy that allays any concerns raised in oppose - it's perfectly valid to have a different philosophy on how to deal with bigots. The fact is that we have policy, and I get the sense that GMG knows when to discuss cases on the talk page and when to discuss changing the policy. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. From my interactions with him, I can tell that GMG seems like the type of person who is good both on the back-end and the front-end sides of Wikipedia. Not only does he have a generally positive demeanor, he is also a solid content contributor. epicgenius (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: I still support GMG, even though some of the opposers have pointed out valid points. However, I'll say one thing: defending a bigot is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. People in debate clubs, swing states, and coffee shops do this all the time. In fact, GMG's conciliatory approach actually improves his ability to defuse conflicts, in my view. On the flip side, it is agreeing with bigots and promoting their message that would be an ominous indicator. So far, I haven't seen indications that this is the case with GMG. The opposers have valid points, and they are entitled to their opinion, but in my view, defending someone is not the same thing as supporting them. Case in point, you can work for the Secret Service and still not like the person whom you're protecting. epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I have two reasons for supporting. The first is that I relate to the comment about producing something that this candidate's daughter will read, even though I don't have a daughter myself. The second is that I like the way he dealt with an unnecessarily adversarial GA review of Scranton general strike. Eric Corbett 01:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. More editors like this please Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I haven't crossed paths with GMG in the past too often, but it seems I've been seeing him more and more lately, and he's always a voice of good reason. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support This is overdue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming my support Some of the opposes have raised legitimate points (and some have not). And I am obliged to give serious consideration to those posted by editors I hold in high regard such as Tony B. But when weighing the specific issues raised against the very broad and impressive history of GMG I still think he remains a net positive and would make a solid admin. However, I will echo others in encouraging him to take note of some of the concerns raised. In closing I do want to make one point which I think needs to be stated loudly and clearly. We do not block or sanction editors for their personal opinions or beliefs, no matter how odious we may find them. We only sanction people for disruptive behavior when lesser measures have either been attempted and failed, or when common sense dictates that swift action is required to protect the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No reason not too. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I thought of asking him several times, but I saw the "not a broom" topicon and thought he didn't want to be one. I've seen the candidate do helpful and useful edits ever since I was here. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I still stand by my support !vote. Yes, GMG reacts to "Nazis" in the same way as if they were good-faith editors, but this is not bad and is, in my opinion, certainly not grounds for opposing. Yes, GMG is a deletionist, but I trust he will not use the tools to over-delete. The real question to be asked here is, will GMG abuse the tools? The most probable answer is no. I would, however,advise GMG to move away from place where he has strong opinions, but that's all. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. This is not why exactly but I'll link it anyhow because of the good sense it displays. --JBL (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support – This is a qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  13. HELL YEAH HELL YEAH! Great user, very nice, very competent, and very intelligent.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 02:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I still stand by G here. Even as a staunch liberal who hates nazis, I don't understand the opposes. I take G's approach to the topic as an attempt to educate bigots, instead of trying to become friends with them.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 21:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - WP:NETPOS.Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Apt for the job. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is to note that I acknowledge, the valid, hitherto (unknown to me) concerns that have been raised lately. I have studied them in the last few hours that they keep coming and the resultant tectonic shift of votes. I would like to admit I actually underassessed the candidate. Yes, I do so (rather failingly from my part) due to our immediately recallable positive interaction and some other areas where he's arguably helpful and clueful. But candidly, even during my mediocre assessment, I must say I was perturbed by the candidate proclivity to AN/ANI, attested by his sheer volume of edits there. I am also slightly aware of Nazi comment incident in some perspective, which gave me a little pause, and few other issues which at the end I didn't collectively found sufficient for me to oppose. Therefore, I will echo those calling for the candidate to have good-faith (a trait I believe he has) in those who have raised these concerns and take note of the concerns seriously–whether you succeed or not–the same way you do for those who supported and either acknowledged the concerns or even trivialized them. I neither trivialize nor neglect them. I believe, they have merit, but still didn't overshadow the other side of the candidate in my view, and may nonetheless make a good Admin. I know this process may be dispiriting to the candidate, (I hope it wouldn't). I wish you the best, whichever way it ends. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Cabayi (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Your calm demeanour and patience at FAC and other places have impressed me, writing a featured article clearly shows that you have the requisite policy knowledge, and you work at the Teahouse, where admin tools might occasionally be useful. Even if you only perform simple tasks that you would previously have asked someone else to do, that still frees up that someone else and means you can give a confused editor a more immediate answer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support All the good reasons are already taken. Seen 'm around.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    would not discount early supports as going back to reaffirm is just disruptive--Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, definitely. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support: a positive presence on the project. Thank you for volunteering. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Great candidate. KingAndGod 05:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - So here's the thing. At least in part due to the username change, I get GMG confused with 2-4 other people I associate with ANI thread ubiquity these days. From my perspective, that's not a great starting point (I have mixed feelings about RfA candidates with a strong inclination to jump into noticeboard drama). So I came here thinking I would put myself in the neutral camp, expressing a couple concerns and promising to dig deeper before actually supporting/opposing. Instead, I've just spent more time than I think I've ever spent on an RfA vote, going through past interactions and other threads/comments/contributions from the past couple years. Here's what I found: I did find some comments that added more heat than light and a few instances of perhaps being too keen to sanction for my tastes. Not enough to have any lingering concern, however (hence not linking), because I saw much much more of the positive variety of collaboration/commentary/contributions, such that I am convinced GMG would be an asset to the project as an admin. Extra long comment to go along with my support vote to justify the time I've just spent researching. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support been meaning to ask them why they haven't run yet for some time; of course. Would be a great admin. The greatest. Believe me. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Am standing by my !vote, despite the opposes. I would advise GMG to take the concerns and be less heat inducing in some instances, of which I too have a somewhat negative impression. But overall, I think he'd be a good admin, who'd use the tools well. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. I have not crossed pathed often with GMG, but have seen them a fair bit recently (come to think of it). Either way, my interactions with them have never caused me any concern and they strike me as a fine candidate. I agree with above sentiment that this is long overdue and that all the good "support"'s are taken . Good luck GMG! --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I literally thought that they already were one. No concerns. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming Support - While the opposers have linked to situations that GMG could have handled better, there is nothing earth-shatteringly bad in there. Therefore, we have to balance out the positives of another active prolific admin against the negatives of...an admin who is human. Giving GMG the tools represents an overwhelming net positive to the encyclopedia. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Even handed and the sort of guy we want to meddle in disputes.Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support It's a mop, and it's about time this user started doing more mopping power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-confirming my support. Based on my experience, this user is contributing to the project in good faith, is competent, and has sufficient experience to not fuck things up. Assuming there are no red flags, that's all I require in an RFA candidate. As far as the opposes, the "too inclusionist/deletionist" votes are tired and ignorable, and I'm deliberately refraining from comment on the "is insufficiently hostile to Nazis" votes. The comments about noticeboard comments sometimes generating more heat than light (particularly regarding the recent ARBCOM motion) are not ignorable; but don't give me any reason to oppose. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Good answers. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Definite net positive. Despite deletionist leanings at AFD, he takes reasoned positions and can be persuaded to withdraw/change vote with sufficient evidence. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  31. At blooming last. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 07:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Jianhui67 T★C 08:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Would be a good admin I think. scope_creep (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Trusted editor. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Ha, I'd been meaning to suggest User:GreenMeansGo should run for admin for a few weeks, but kept not quite getting round to it. GreenMeansGo seems very good at handling problems in a calm manner, clearly has the experience and understanding for admin, and I'd be very happy to see this RfA succeed. Oh, and I like the confidence behind a self-nomination too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read some opposes from people I greatly respect, but I'm still supporting. I hope that GMG will listen to their misgivings, and I'm sure he will. Regarding this comment, I actually find that a disarmingly admirable stance to take on life in general - it just needs tempering with the needs of Wikipedia if applied here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Obviously. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I was surprised that GMG didn't already have the mop. He clearly understands why we're all here, incorporates that belief into everything that he does, and acts with integrity at all times. In my view, GMG with a mop will only benefit the encyclopedia. OhKayeSierra (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming Support - I've read through some of the opposes, with some coming from editors that I greatly respect and admire. I see an editor with potential to do great work for the project as an administrator, judging from the content he's worked on as well as his discourse with other editors, I also see someone who has grown in leaps and bounds since becoming an editor here. But, most importantly, I see an editor that is empathetic to others and attempts to put himself in other's shoes. I can't imagine a better candidate for adminship. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Restoring earlier comment that seems to have been inadvertently deleted. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - bastion of the Teahouse, has earned the mop. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Zarasophos (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Yeah, competent editor. talk to !dave 10:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support – Based on past actions, I'm confident that they can handle the mop. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 11:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Clear net positive. GMG is a very helpful editor. Solid content creation, well-versed in policies and guidelines, calm demeanor on noticeboards, loads of experience with new users at TeaHouse... and most importantly, understands the purpose of this project! I see no reason why he shouldn't be given the extra buttons! Jiten talk contribs 11:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support: I don't see any issues at all to not support it. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 11:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. By all means. Yintan  12:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to my support, and I quote Lepricavark here: "I strongly reject the notion that GMG should be opposed because he is willing to defend bigots as part of his effort to help them change their views". Also, that thing happened 18 months ago. Even if it is a problem for some editors, I think they should consider the time passed. Yintan  15:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I admire the way this editor deals with promotional content, and its contributors, so if the admin toolset would enhance that I'm happy to support. Poltair (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, no issues--Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  47. support seems solid for the job--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I have always found GreenMeansGo to be reliable and helpful, just the sort of qualities we need in an administrator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Seems like one of the good ones. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Excellent answer to my question, fraught with peril. He provided a fair answer to why he self-nom'd. AfD stats are good. He would be the proud owner of a four award had he taken Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 to DYK. I think GMG is ready for the big time. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Clearly the kind of level-headed editor who we can trust with a few additional buttons. — sparklism hey! 12:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support +1 -- ferret (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Definitely --Jetstreamer Talk 13:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  54. —Kusma (t·c) 13:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What took you so long? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC) (struck, moved to oppose) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Thankfully, now he'll stop pestering me. In your own words GMG, now "go be an admin and do admin things." L0URDES 13:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC) (With regret, moving to oppose, L0URDES)[reply]
    ​Thankfully there are plenty of us still willing to bug you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support But, avoid history merges for awhile. They are pretty simple to do, but tedious to fix if you mess up.--v/r - TP 14:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support great answers to the general questions. Humility is an excellent trait to have as an administrator. Royalbroil 14:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Helps out confuses newbies at the Teashouse, helps prevent promotional guff at NPP, has a good grasp of policy, has GA and FA experience... I could go on. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Steel1943 (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  59. I had intended on sitting this one out, but will support following the answers to questions 7, 8, and 9. I think GMG is a great candidate who has the right cut of his jib. I have had a few concerns about civility — the last thing we need is yet another rude sysop — but the answers are enough to allay my hesitation. GMG clearly has the absolute best intentions; the daughter thing may seem a little schmaltzy, but it's the perfect view of the project and I couldn't agree more (there should be an essay, something about planting trees). Besides, we could use a bit more humor and humility around here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to expand on this a bit in light of the flood of opposes, if I may be so bold as to presume anyone will read this. The hesitation I referred to is pretty much exactly Martinp's excellently-worded oppose below. Civility is important to me, but the more I've thought about this the more okay with this I am. The meat of the oppose argument has focused on the ArbCom comments, the "find mainspace" comment, and the defending of a user or two. I disagree with all of GMG's stances and responses here — they are frustrated, rude, and dumb, respectively — but I've seen no evidence or argument that they weren't made in good-faith or that GMG would abuse the toolset. In fact, I think the ranting at WT:ACN (IMO the more egregious action) is evidence they will vent rather than take action, as many others, including sysops, have and will continue to do. "Find mainspace" is rude and should be admonished, but is not nearly enough to be disqualifying by itself. Defending the undefensible shows poor judgment, and to paraphrase GMG himself, he was wrong just wrong in this case; but again, I haven't read or seen one suggestion that GMG would do anything in opposition to consensus. I will not oppose someone because I disagree with their good-faith arguments, even if they were wrong. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support GMG would make for an excellent admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support --Alaa :)..! 15:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support GMG is very helpful as a Teahouse host, where I know him best. He is an all around good editor who knows our policies and guidelines, and is properly focused on improving the encyclopedia. The family mentions are humanizing and I appreciate them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support:Nice contributor. - Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 16:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Solid contribution record, good answers above, and I find no reason to oppose. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC) Changing to Oppose, sorry. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Sensible, helpful. Vexations (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support yes please! ansh666 17:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  65. (edit conflict) Support I was one of those GMG asked to vet him and after I did, I was one of those who offered to nominate him. I respect his decision to self-nom though. Like another admin I nominated, TonyBallioni, GMG and I disagree philosophically at times but he is also one of those users who does not let philosophical differences stand in the way of collaboration and who, like Tony, respects and follows policies even when he disagrees with them. When vetting, I noticed a couple of mistakes in deletion related areas but GMG has offered good explanations and, more importantly, demonstrated that he understands that and/or why they were mistakes. That was in January. Since then, I have seen nothing that would indicate that he has reverted to "his old ways", so I'm happy to offer my support. Regards SoWhy 17:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - Green most definitely means go, which I'll now do; being glad that I came. And gladdest that GMG came to offer us such a fine gift. I am thankful indeed.--John Cline (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - excellent candidate, and I'm always very happy to see a self-nomination. Thanks for volunteering. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to follow up in response to the opposition concerns regarding his bigot comment: The pattern of behaviour that I see here is well-thought, positive contributions to discussions, with the occasional brash or odd comment as discussed below. I see no indication that these occasional comments will change the way GMG uses the sysop tools, and I trust that they won't. Admins are allowed to be wrong about things, or to take an unpopular stance on issues, so long as their use of the admin tools conforms with community policy. Not worth derailing the RfA of someone who would no doubt be able to properly use the sysop tools over one silly comment. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Good level-headed editor. Natureium (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong support per SoWhy. I can't remember if I said it on-wiki or off, but I remarked not too long ago that GMG could self-nom and pass with a landslide, and lo and behold here we are. He has the project's best interests at heart and is committed to clearing out backlogs (particularly at NPP). He has common sense in spades, is good at defusing tricky situations, and has a comprehensive understanding of policy. Give him the damn mop and bucket already. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and reaffirming support per some of the ridiculous opposes downthread. GMG said "this is why we don't defend admins who use their tool to win an edit war because it fundamentally erodes confidence in the admin corpse" - agree completely with this and frankly those admins who are concerned about it need to read the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment and think about how it might apply to them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support No issues. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support as per Jiten D. Always appears to edit for the good of the project. Sound reasoning in discussions. Loopy30 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Happy to pile on I've seen GMG around, and I like what I see (especially their rationale for the self-nom). Excellent candidate. Miniapolis 19:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Weak Support - The user is rather deletionist for my personal viewpoint, but as the decision point is "will do good for Wikipedia as an admin" not "will argue in AfD in line with me", it's a clear support. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed to Weak support, re Neo-nazi/talk page etc, but I view them as a case of a user that is being too generous in supporting users improve. Wikipedia can often end up as a howling mob on a few unfortunate souls, and having someone who will converse with others, even if unhappy/despising their nature, can actually be a benefit. Additionally, the issues in question do not seem ones at dire risk of admin-power issues. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I've had no past interaction with GMG, however, they have a good tenure and robust edit count, clear block log, high AfD match rate, and good content record. Their reason for feeling they need to be an admin seems rather vague / ambiguous but, all in all, the project would only benefit by elevating GMG. Chetsford (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - No issues. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Great answers to the questions. GMG definitely has his priorities straight, and seems to sufficiently understand policy. I don't see an overwhelming need for the tools, but I've no reason not to trust him with extra buttons, either. If he becomes a backlog-killing machine, that's awesome, and if he just does a little bit here and there, that's great too :) — MusikAnimal talk 20:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @MusikAnimal: I didn't know GMG was a guideline . --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Honest to God, if I had realized how similar GMG was to GNG, I would have chosen a different name. GMGtalk 23:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, I think GMG would make for a great guideline! :) Fixed my typo — MusikAnimal talk 23:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Zero reason not to, in my book. — 🦊 20:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - TNT❤ 20:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirm !vote - The sentiment in "I do reserve the right to defend bigots, because I'm better than them. And that's something that someone who is better than them would do." is rather humbling, and I'm really disappointed in the oppose votes jumping on an incident with the view of derailing the RfA. There is a difference between "defending" and "entirely agreeing" with someone - TNT❤ 12:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  79. About time I've found GMG to be level-headed and willing to help, always assuming good faith when needed; he also demonstrates knowledge of WP policies – all great qualities for an admin, IMO. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reiterating my support, mostly per TNT above and per GMG's answers to questions 15 and 16. –FlyingAce✈hello 01:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - He's qualified.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Experienced, active, humble, patient, calm and knowledgeable about policy. 1 2 3 4. I worked with GMG on Marlon Bundo. wumbolo ^^^ 22:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I take no issue with GMG's dealing around that Nazi-stuff editor, who may even be from my country. I cannot access that user's userpage and wish that an admin undeletes it for this discussion's purposes, and deletes it afterwards. No issue with GMG's talk page comment, even though I fundamentally disagree with it. wumbolo ^^^ 13:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support – Seen him around, seems sensible. Kurtis (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reaffirming my support in light of GMG's recent comment about defending bigots. My interpretation is not that he defends bigotry, but that he wishes to counter it with compassion and understanding. I do wish he would have phrased his thoughts a little better. Even so, I think he'll do fine as an administrator. Kurtis (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Came to my attention recently for his interactions with Rector Trinity (talk · contribs). He handled that appropriately, and my reivew of his answers to questions here and of the various !voters rationales satisfies me that he an appropriate candidate for adminship. Steve Smith (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Only positive interactions so far. Zchrykng (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, precious "Hopefully I'll meet you out there on an article soon." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Per nom. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this appears to veering close to a 'crat chat, I'm going to expand on my !vote. I can see where some of the oppose voters are coming from, but I haven't formed the same opinions over the diffs I've seen. If what I saw was truly someone definding Nazi ideas, I'd be moving to the oppose camp quite quickly. But that's not what I see. I see someone who has considered their own ideals about dealing with others, and is expressing their opinion about it. While we often call on administrators to be impartial when judging disputes and handing out sanctions, no one is truly impartial. GMG knows his position, and now, so do we. The concern that GMG is not civil in every case is up to interpretation, but I disagree with that assesment based on the diffs provided.
    As per usual, the arguments about AFD percentages and namespage percentages hold about as much weight with me as...uhh...a thing that doesn't hold weight. GMG certainly has mainspace credentials, so the complaints about Wikipediaspace discussions mean little. While I couldn't say about GMG some of the things I've said about other candidates I've supported, I still believe he has the necessary skills and community trust to be given the mop. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support I definitely support GMG for adminship, and in fact I had considered approaching him in the past, just never followed up. He checks all my boxes: strong article creator, consistently active for more than two years, experience at all the right boards for an admin to be familiar with, and has a demonstrated need for the tools. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support, experienced constructive editor. No concerns about usage of admin tools. Occasional disagreements in AfD nominations seem to be based on reasonable good-faith arguments and concerns, where other editors offered equally valid counter-arguments or alternative solutions. Such differing views are perfectly fine in a collaborative environment. GermanJoe (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support: likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support All good to me, best of luck! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support no apparent downside Find bruce (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Why not? -FASTILY 03:51, 29 April 2018
  93. Support Denisarona (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support --Cyrus noto3at bulaga Talk to me 09:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support TriNitrobrick (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Good editor that will be a good addition to the list of sysop's. FITINDIA 10:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Doug Weller talk 11:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support seen around, looks good. Aiken D 12:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose Called a mop a broom once. Inexcusable mistake. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC) [FBDB][reply]
  101. Support I had several concerns about him when I first saw that he was applying for adminship, but as I looked further into his contributions, I really liked how well he worked with the community and his civility, and I believe that that's one of the most important qualities an admin needs to have. The bump that made me decide "Yep, I'm definitely supporting him" was how he replied to this and this.--SkyGazer 512 What will you say? / What did I do? 13:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - good candidate who is helpful at the Teahouse and will make good use of the tools. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - in good standing and has a need for the tools to help further in areas already active. Experience at commons: related to areas where they assist is a plus. Prior account is declared on userpage and I don't see any issues from prior editing, with a clear separation in time before restarting under this username. — xaosflux Talk 15:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Moved to neutral. — xaosflux Talk 14:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - per Eric (although I do have a daughter). I haven't always agreed with GMG when we've interacted, but I respect his ability to explain his views. He has good content experience and a great deal of clue. He'll make a fine admin. --RexxS (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support A very competent editor who also handles himself well on the 'back-end' processes of Wikipedia. I have seen he has strong principles and is willing to speak out when he sees something he thinks is wrong. This is precisely the type of admin we need going forward. I think GreenMeansGo will be a great asset as an admin and he has my complete support. Jbh Talk 16:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support An excellent editor who deserves to become an admin. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Unsure about this. The issues that TonyBalloni brings up are valid, but I GreenMeansGo's point. I'm unsure about the candidate currently, so I am moving to neutral. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support RfAs aren't about perfection; they're about suitability. Nihlus 16:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support WP:NOBIGDEAL great editor, sufficient experience. Septrillion (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support, purely and unashamedly due to seeing them around a lot lately in all kinds of fraught discussions and mostly being a welcome, productive and informed voice of reason. Unrelatedly, that picture file has the most useless name imaginable and should be Kentuckified or Williamsburged post-haste. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Done GMGtalk 17:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Definitely Support Excellent editor, and very keen to help from my interactions with him. He is not driven by any personal bias. Being an admin is a source of comfort. Nabataeus (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support though I could have sworn he was an admin already. hiàn 17:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support appears well qualified. --Volvlogia (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Home Lander (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - fully qualified, actually clueful and helpful at AN/I (which is unusual from the peanut gallery there), diplomatic enough to work the teahouse, blunt enough to tell you how he really feels. Swarm ♠ 19:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 20:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - I see no issues here. Time for a new mop. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Wpgbrown (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – I'm certain that GMG will be an excellent administrator. @GreenMeansGo: I hope, though, that you will take some of the opposes to heart – your recent comments on the ACN talk were not flattering and didn't make it seem like you actually read the thing you were complaining about, which is how we get unnecessary drama. Best of luck with the tools, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking support in light of more recent comments. I don't know where I'll end up but I don't think it will be a support. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. I think GMG will make a fine administrator based on their work and knowledge of Wikipedia policy. /wiae /tlk 00:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support solid candidate. The recent ArbCom-related comments do not concern me. Lepricavark (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To further clarify my position, I strongly reject the notion that GMG should be opposed because he is willing to defend bigots as part of his effort to help them change their views. I see nothing wrong with an admin who is willing to take the patient approach. This RfA is starting to head in the wrong direction, and I hope further oppose !voters will not pile on because the candidate has stated a willingness to defend bigots for the purpose of seeking to change their beliefs. Lepricavark (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since that is likely aimed at my oppose I’ll respond: of course there is an issue with it even if it isn’t ideological. That approach may work individually in private conversations with people (we all have our racist aunt at the Christmas party.) Wikipedia is not a family Christmas party. Wikipedia is a website open to members of the general public. It is not censored, but we also have an obligation to make sure that all editors feel safe here and feel like administrators take their concerns about the toxic environment that bigotry creates seriously. An administrator who effectively tells people to take it easy on the racist, because yeah, it’s toxic, but we should try to change them risks getting rid of non-toxic contributors. Wikipedia does not exist to make Nazis see the errors of their ways. It exists to be a neutral encyclopedia, and that means both keeping the environment safe for good faith editors and making sure that editors with fringe and extremist POVs are not allowed to spread hate in our content. Sometimes that means we have to show someone the door when we might treat them differently in real life. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You never know what sort of human being is behind the screen and keyboard. There has been a longstanding user on another forum I've helped run in the past, who is a card carrying UKIP member and who was regularly criticised for having bizarre views (eg: metrication is evil, the 2012 London Olympics were a waste of money, hectares are stupid measurements - everyone knows what an acre is. etc etc) and occasionally accused of being a closet racist and a bigot. After lengthy discussions, it turns out that the chap once attended a UKIP meeting and it was the first time he'd actually felt welcome as a group anywhere, which caused him to turn a blind eye to all the "we're definitely not racists" and Nigel Farage saying "what's wrong with being concerned about a bunch of Romanian men moving in next door to you?" I still think he's totally in the wrong but at least I got a rational explanation and an understanding that he doesn't think John Tyndall is an inspiration. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support of course Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support No problems with him becoming administrator given his contributions.Desp2002 (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support - has been an asset these past two years, and is willing to do more work if given the tools. MarginalCost (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-affirming my support, since there's been some concern expressed that the early votes will be discounted as uninformed. epicgenius & AntiCompositeNumber (supports # 3 and 87 at the time of this writing) re-affirmations hit upon the decisive themes for me. I further feel that it seems odd to me that the comments that seem to be attracting the most controversy are being used (by some, not all) to say that he will be too rash in judgement, when his specific point was a lack of due process, and lack of consideration given to less extreme measures such as a topic ban or limited-duration block. MarginalCost (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support without hesitation. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support - The civility issues raised by the opposers concern me a bit, but in my opinion it should be easier for the community to both hire and to fire admins, and the issues aren't strong enough for me to want to oppose, so I have no problem with this user becoming an admin. Iffy★Chat -- 08:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    1. @Iffy:--Whilst I absolutely concur with the prospects of an easy hire' and easy fire model, I'm afraid that the community is so over-(??)protective in handing out the mop, partly because the firing takes an abnormal and disproportionate expenditure of editorial time and resources.But, despite weakly opposing, I do think that GMG ain't anywhere close to de-sysop stuff.....~ Winged BladesGodric 10:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support pretty much per Iffy.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support, will be fine. Has seemed to me from our limited interactions to be a polite, sensible and smart chap. I note that none of the reasons provided below in opposition are particularly compelling. Fish+Karate 12:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support A consummation devoutly to be wished. Disagreeing with the opposes in detail would require too much philosophy, but suffice to say I don't find them persuasive. GoldenRing (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support Not an awful person, would probably be effective with a mop. Yunshui 雲水 13:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - an easy vote, as I've seen nothing but great interactions at the Teahouse helping editors on a constant basis. Always willing to support those who actually want to help the cause. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 14:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. We all have flaws, as the opposition shows. However, we do not seek perfection in our RfA candidates and I see nothing egregious enough to make me think that GMG would be nothing but a net positive with the mop. Best of luck. -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support. Let's not make the mistake of thinking that all admins are perfect; if that was necessary, we wouldn't have many! Deb (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support: Great user, will be great as an admin. Also, no Wikipedian is perfect - lest there'd be a lot less of us. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support: There are a lot of editors and administrators on the oppose site of this RfA whose opinions I deeply respect, and whose judgement I generally trust on matters relating to adminship. However, after reviewing the diffs and muddling my way through figuring out which comments were from GreenMeansGo's previous 2 usernames, I couldn't find anything that I found disqualifying. Yes, he has had controvertial opinions, and opinions that I sharply disagree with, but everything I have seen has shown that he would still observe consensus and not misuse the admin tools to get his way. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 16:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. Concerns about a candid, honest statement on his own talk page are utter horse shit nonsense horse shit. Most of the opposition is a lot of stone throwing from people who live in glass houses. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, concerns about someone not understanding the difference between having a conversation with a neo-Nazi at a bar and working on a collaborative editing environment are not horse shit. I get that people may disagree with my view here (I am sympathetic to Boing!'s comment above, actually), but, no, the concerns are not horse shit, and classifying the views of editors who may disagree with you that way is unacceptable. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I called these views exactly like I saw them, and frankly, they were downright disgusting. I stand by my characterization. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, calling a block of a neo-Nazi the worst block I've seen on my eight plus years here... is in my view, downright disturbing. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just comment here as I've been mentioned, to say I think there's a bit too much hyperbole going on. I can see both sides, and I really don't see a need for such strong sentiments. On the one hand I'm impressed by GMG's approach to dealing with bigotry (especially as he's someone who has been a victim of it in more than one context). On the other hand, I don't think it's an approach we should take here at Wikipedia. My take on dealing with bigots, racists, anti-semites, neo-nazis or whatever at Wikipedia is to shut the door in their faces - simple as that. I think we all have similar feelings towards such people, but we just have different ideas of how to deal with them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support - for a second I was going to !vote neutral. Though the link provided by Boing! said Zebedee has changed my mind. I agree generally with what GMG is saying here, and I agree with TonyBallioni's point that Wikipedia and a pub chat are not the same thing. Here we deal with bigotry by removing it, and its purveyor. I generally support that. Indeed, I have advocated immediate removal of anti-semites at first contact. However, I cannot fault an editor for choosing a different route. GMG's goal is not to promulgate bigotry. That said, I will dedicate the rest of this !vote to address why I very nearly went neutral.
    I remember the Zaostao incident in 2016. I only got to it after the block had been issue and my only action regarding it was to add a header to the block notification. I looked at both the AN/I and talk page. GMG only left one comment at AN/I querying the validity of the block being preventative, and a comment on the user's talk page noting that Caucasian is racist. I didn't know that... I consider myself Caucasian. Welp. I did note the more extended commentary on GMG's talk page and ... I don't support the assertion that you can defend anyone you please. I am, personally, very cautious about attributing isms to people with limited evidence, but there was a collection of evidence for the accusation. There is a difference defending an accused Nazi sympathizer and a confirmed one. Zaostao didn't even deny it, only vaguely dodged it with some insinuation that they have not contributed neo-Nazi material to articles. Something that has been demonstrated to be untrue. In this sense, I think GMG poorly selected their defense target, and I certainly do not think it's the worst block.
    Writing this, I must say, I've moved further from my neutral position and more towards support. The act of thinking this through has recalibrated my perception. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support - mainly because of some of the same reasons several respected opposers are opposing. Green seems like a careful, deliberative person, who knows good from evil, from personal experience, no less, but does not have a knee-jerk "burn the witch" reaction that several of the opposers seem to be requiring. I am reminded of a question in the second Bush-Dukakis presidential debate, where the latter was criticized for keeping his principles in response to an emotional question. We need more calm, deliberative admins, not less. --GRuban (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support with a couple of reservations here and there. "Have you found mainspace yet" is one of them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been watching the continuing comments come in, and while the reservations remain, I'm just not yet convinced that the mop would be a net negative. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support while he might have been served by waiting a while, or building a little more main-space cred, I see him as a WP:NETPOSITIVE. In my personal dealing with him, I've seen a lot of admirable stuff. The comments involving the 'Nazi' stuff are just blown out of proportion and I don't interpret them at all the same way some of the opposers have. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Regrettably, the esteemed nom apparently has had committed self-defenestration or was it self-immolation or was it self-impalement. Be that as it may, and I rue it to the utmost, he be a good doobie, and deserves a mop for having his aim be true. I truly believe his admittance to adminship would have brought the Engrish Wikipedia closer to fine, and I am not reading this into the record only for the venial/parochial reason of having also graduated from a public university in the Commonwealth. Howgh. The South shall rise again. --Mareklug talk 21:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Interesting RfA. On balance, the candidate looks to be reflective, attentive, broad minded, an independent thinker, and here to help out. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support I do not believe that GMG will misuse the tools, and that they will be a net positive to the project. SQLQuery me! 21:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support This editor would be a net positive to the project as an admin. While I don't agree with a few things he has done, in the vast majority I would have done the same thing. --Frmorrison (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support Elaboration TK but wanted to go ahead and say I’d made up my mind. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Circling back. So, I was also going to sit this one out, largely for reasons already named by others expressing this sentiment. However, I am now persuaded that the oppose votes (who raised concerns I largely shared, except for the bit about being both too inclusionist and too deletionist--that part I didn't follow) have made a sufficient impression and GMG will take these concerns onboard his otherwise-strong record and make a good admin. Essentially, I'm looking at it like an ORCP where I'm reasonably confident the prospective candidate would immediately start heeding the advice received and then pass unanimously a few months later. This is perhaps a more painful way (most of all for the candidate) to reach the same result, but I'm not too worried we won't get the good result we hope for, therefore I'm comfortable conferring the mop now rather than making everyone redo this six months hence. (It wasn't what made my decision, but Q12--binding recall--is also an additional insurance policy to this end.) Innisfree987 (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support - GMG, in the years to come, you'll be able to look back on this RfA and say, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness...(~Dickens) I've seen you around, and nothing stood out that concerned me. We need admins, and I believe you'll make a good 'un. I liked your answers to the questions. You will be under watchful eyes for a while, so don't break the mop. B-) Atsme📞📧 01:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Yet another incredibly helpful editor who tops my "weren't they already an admin?" list. Might as well make it official. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support Thank you for nominating this fine editor. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 05:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support <color=273731>78<color=252627> (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Block evading sockpuppet !vote struck. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  146. clueful, helpful, productive, imperfect human. -Floquenbeam (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Floquenbeam. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. Most of my exchanges with this editor were positive. feminist (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Great editor, never driven by any bias. He will be a great admin ! —>Farawahar (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support: Not necessarily the best of the best, but has made many valuable contributions to the project and has shown that he is willing to get over his mistakes. ToThAc (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support The responses to questions 5, 12, and 15 are persuasive. The comments of others - even those in opposition - indicate an editor who strives always to act in good faith. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Having disagreed with him in the past, including at the recent Arb case, and having read the opposes and his record, I am persuaded that he will be a useful admin to the project. (Specifically we should reject the 'defending evil' issue, as being blown out of all reasoned proportion for the edit involved and unfair). A useful reminder here, to the candidate and others, no one is perfect, we should regularly be able to say, 'mistake' and move on. Also, Floquenbeam's comment is quite eloquent and on-point. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support, largely per Innisfree987 and L235. The candidate has made a few opponents in the past because of his extensive work on Wikipedia and seems to be learning from criticism gracefully. Rather than failing this candidate now and letting him come back to RfA a few months later with a large passing margin, let's just pass him now and let him get started with this RfA as his permanent reminder of the controversies that any dispute on Wikipedia can get. Deryck C. 16:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support I do recognize the concerns raised by some of the opposers. However, I think that GMG acts in good faith, and can be trusted with the mop. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support The most commonly mentioned criticism appears to be that GMG is a bit of a deletionist – which, frankly, doesn’t bother me. And, I’ll take helpful and a sense of humor over perfect any day. As Twain said: "Continuous improvement is better than delayed perfection." O3000 (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support Think this is my first ever RfA !vote and so gave it particular thought. I think all the oppose reasons are valid and in particular could see what Kudpung says coming to pass. Yet even if it does, I think he would be still likely be a net positive Admin, as an incident here and there is unlikely to outweigh the larger contribution I see GMG making as an Admin, based on his track record of contributions to the encyclopedia to date. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. I'm concerned that the "defend bigots" meme spreading here could derail your RfA. That logic could be misused to ban the ACLU. Your advice to the editor claiming to be Jason Kessler is exemplary (and I have no reason to doubt that he is who he claims to be). On the other hand non-admin closes like this one leave me scratching my head. I'm reassured by the self-reflection on your talk page: "I apologize if I've taken an overly flippant attitude to everyone." "I...didn't look super deep into the details of the scenario from so long ago." Please recognize that we expect admins to live up to a higher standard, and look deeper into the details before commenting on noticeboards. There are several valid rationales in the oppose section, do take them on board. wbm1058 (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Weak Support – as with many others I share some of the convern that the oppose !voters bring up, however while hind-site is 20/20 I do not believe GreenMeansGo's Neo-Nazi controversy was made out in good-faith and is as serious as some make it out to be, and there are plenty of editors who lean towards deletionism or inclusionism so I do not see that as a dealbreaker either. Overall GreenMeansGo's content contribution and conduct has been good so that is why I believe he will be a net positive. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support I expect that giving him the bit will be a net positive for en.wiki. Pichpich (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support I've read the diffs in the Oppose section. I think GMG probably has a more inflammatory way of writing his statements than some, which could be a big issue in the future if not controlled. But I didn't see anything in the Oppose section bad enough to warrant him not getting the tools - he's a net positive and I don't see him misusing the tools. -NottNott 22:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support: Mostly per Boing!. Alex Shih (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support I think this user will be a net positive, and believe that many of the issues raised in the opposes will be taken into consideration based on the responses given. Emk9 (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support This took a turn. Although I was a little surprised at the early near unanimous support due to their cavalier approach, so I guess that has evened out. However, they are a very clueful and dedicated editor. Yeah there are issues, which are heartily covered in the oppose section. None are deal breakers for me and I am confident the positives outweigh the negatives. Also bonus points not just for the self nom, but also the rational behind it. AIRcorn (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support - I'm willing to give GMG a chance in spite of the concerns raised below. Hopefully he takes the the comments and advice to heart, whether or not this RfA passes. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 07:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support- no strong opinion, but I just feel I need to balance against the "he defends bigots" people below because I think they have misunderstood the point GMG was making. Reyk YO! 08:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support. By all means! We need the help! -- Ϫ 08:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support. Seems a smart (important) & judicious/thoughtful (extremely important) guy. --IHTS (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support.– Gilliam (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support Your presentation clearly convinced me and I believe you qualify yourself for this duty. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]

#Oppose Two grounds: First, the primary level of "delete" nominations and votes is exceedingly high, with many of the BLP edits being "nomination for deletion" or simple reversion of vandals. (Under 5% of AfD !votes are "Keep") Nice enough, but not indicative of much other than "delete first" and "no new real content" problems. Therefore - "oppose". Collect (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring my faith in wikihumanity. No damn Kentucky anything deserves unanimous approval. --Mareklug talk 20:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Kentucky is a pretty crap state, unless you're into hiking and whitewater. In which case it turns out to be pretty awesome. GMGtalk 22:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments from this oppose, including a subsequent discussion, may be found on the talkpage. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Regretful oppose, per his badgering at the recent "Abuse of Administrator Tools" RFAr [1]. The skillset of an admin should include pausing to understand why others might have a different opinion than you, de-escalating conflict, finding middle ground (where appropriate), and letting go and/or leaving the soapbox to someone else when others credibly don't agree with you. In this instance, GMG had a strong point of view, and articulated it forcefully and well to begin with. But when other experienced users (including several highly respected arbcom members) took a different (not necessarily opposed, just more nuanced) view, he showed no evidence of pausing to consider why, and instead badgered with increasing stridency. The combined tone of "What is disturbing that so many ... showed up to defend it", "declining a motion looks an awful lot like endorsement", "If ... then you probably shouldn't be sitting on the arbitration committee" (to an arbitrator) and "I realize Arbcom and common sense aren't always easy bedfellows" is one of badgering, even bullying. In a situation precipitated by folks (including an admin) yelling "I'm right and I'm going to steamroller ahead my way, it's my narrative or the highway", it's ironic he was doing exactly the same thing on a meta level in its resolution. Now I don't know GMG; it seems from all the supports above that he does great work. And we can all get passionate about what we believe in. So normally I wouldn't oppose based on one situation, even if a prominent and recent one. But GNG just can't seem to let go. In his own words (under Tryptofish's neutral below), he felt the need to comment on the RFAR issue *after Arbcom had disposed of it* with a final comment of "sarcarm in lieu of incivility". This is in spite of Arbcom's resolution being about 50% of what he had been asking for. And he continues, 2 weeks later, to write below, in this RFA, that "Arbcom can disagree with me, and that just makes Arbcom wrong". I find that pattern disturbing - not because it's arbcom, but because it shows someone who just can't drop the stick, can't accept narratives other than his own, and turns a difference of opinion into a long and sharp conflict. I wish GMG all the best, and it seems (from trends in the RFA) he'll get the mop, and I'm sure he'll wield it well. But for my part, I'd love to see a pattern of 6 mos or so conflict de-escalation and stepping back from the brink before I can support. Martinp (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirm oppose. I came back 30 hours after my !vote, a bit uncomfortable basing it on essentially one (extended) instance. But I see a number of other similar interactions have come to light. GMG, you seem like a great guy, who does a lot of content creation, knows policy, helps newbies. But there does seem to be a pattern where your "no bullshit" approach escalates rhetoric, and sharpens rather than de-escalates conflict. Seems to be in particular in (some) debates with established users, who you feel should be able to handle your bluntness, and where you see black and white while participants as a group see shades of grey. Regardless of whether you get the mop this time, can you (as SandyGeorgia says below) recognize these situations and slow down and deliberately be measured rather than inflammatory? You may correctly judge forceful words won't really hurt the experienced user you're disagreeing with, but they do singe bystanders, and will do so even more if you are holding a mop in the other hand (even if you're not actively mopping at that moment). Martinp (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose As per Collect, GreenMeansGo is clearly a deletionist. I am not willing to discuss my vote further, please don't attempt to contact me (or attack me in some other way). Unanimous support has no meaning if anyone opposing it is badgered till they relent. -Mparrault (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: @Mparrault: - "I am not willing to discuss my vote further, please don't attempt to contact me" - then why should your "!vote" even be considered, or counted? - theWOLFchild 23:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Thewolfchild, good point. I also can't stand it when someone throws something like that out there. Only thing missing is "full stop. period. basta. end of discussion." Drmies (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Collect and Mparrault. I generally try to look past editing philosophy and focus on quality of edits and experience, but the stats provided by Collect concern me. I'm very sorry, but I'll have to oppose this one. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (off topic posts moved to talk page)
    Having checked some of the diffs other editors linked to, such as this one, I have concerns about this editor's temperament as well so I will regretfully have to still oppose. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, per adding more heat than light at the recent (March 2018) RFC on video inclusion in medical articles. While an RFC was being discussed on a broad topic, affecting 300 articles, with the aim of putting together a well-formed RFC that would generate broad consensus, GMG made this post, followed by this post, and this local RFC, which was a distraction from starting a global RFC to solve a broader problem than one article, indicating that he was opining without really understanding the broad issue. His actions seemed both impetuous and arrogant, which are not characteristics of a good admin. Since it looks like he is on track to gain the tools, I hope he will slow down, read, and take this criticism on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the issue with his comments. He did create the RFC, but closed it after he was notified that there was another one ongoing. Just because he has opinions you don't agree with (for example, not seeing consensus in an RFC) shouldn't merit an oppose. However, that's just my opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to your own. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: I realized I forgot to ping you in my response ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]
    No problem, I am happy to expound. One of the worst characteristics in an admin is for them to jump to conclusions without fully understanding the issue, or being willing to take the time to thoroughly understand something before shooting off the mouth; because being an admin Is A Big Deal, when they make misstatements, that carries weight. That is what GMG did in this situation (failed to understand the broad situation, quick to opine and act-- bad combination if one has the tools.) So, he retracted the RFC once I asked and he accepted that the matter had already been decided; he cannot retract a block after he's issued it. This is an example where he could have done some homework before wasting people's time. I hope he will reflect on this once he has the tools, and I hope not to see him jumping to conclusions without fully understanding the situation he is getting involved in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Regretful oppose per Martinp & SandyGeorgia. The link provided by L235 is problematic as well. Viewed in the abstract the edits weren't that bad, but given the answer to question #3, I think there's a problem. Banedon (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Lacks temperament, "f anyone wants to construe that as my defending a Nazi, I'm OK with that, as someone who has been spit on, been harassed by police officers, been attacked at social events, I think I've earned the right to defend whomever the hell I please"[2] Andrevan@ 01:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In the broader context of the linked discussion, I'm not really seeing an issue here. Is it because he said a rude word... on his own talk page? – Juliancolton | Talk 02:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I quoted the part where I thought the candidate veered out of a neutral dispute resolution stance and into histrionics. I'm not sure what happened about being spit on or harassed by police officers, and that sounds awful. I just know that if you bring it up in this way to cast oneself as a victim, and then say that this victimhood gives one the right to say, defend a Nazi, that is at least problematic and probably disqualifying. Andrevan@ 03:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Oppose. GMG lacks temperament and judgment. First, he has about 6,300 edits to Wikipedia space, of which 1,200, or about 20%, are to WP:ANI. I wouldn't mind him acting like an administrator before becoming one, but what I've seen (no diffs) hasn't been that good.
    Second, as for temperament, this discussion was a contentious one, and no one came out of it smelling very good, but most of GMG's contributions were singularly inflammatory and not conducive to resolving anything, e.g., "Swarm, we need to stop this shit show, and the sooner the better. You know good and well we don't block users for one violation of mischaracterizing something as vandalism when it isn't. That's heavy handed nonsense and we've had quite enough of that today" and "As it happens, this is why we don't defend admins who use their tool to win an edit war because it fundamentally erodes confidence in the admin corpse. Have you completely lost sight of the reason INVOLVED exists in a fundamental way or are you just having a momentary lapse in judgement?" (emphasis in original).
    Finally, as to judgment, GMG defended a user who did not merit defending in this discussion - at bottom of page. Based on the evidence, there was no reason to treat the user's actions in good faith. I rarely call another editor a "liar", and in this instance I did so but with clear evidence backing up my accusation. Sometimes, an administrator has to call a spade a spade. There are far more Wikipedians who make mistakes or who exaggerate than who lie, but once in a while the description fits.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23: Okay, I'll bite (being the person who GMG once described as "the RfA attack dog" ;-D) .... what is the problem with "this is why we don't defend admins who use their tool to win an edit war because it fundamentally erodes confidence in the admin corps". Do you think it's acceptable for an admin to edit war and to use their tools to win a dispute? Because I don't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say you're argument here is strawmany: Bbb23 isn't saying that "it's acceptable for an admin to edit war and to use their tools to win a dispute" but that the rhetoric used isn't helpful/generates more drama, which I'd agree with Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the sort of thing I've said myself; sometimes you need to be blunt to an admin, and "normal" users are afraid to do so because of the threat of blocking or other sanctions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. I came here fully expecting to support. However, the complete non answer to question 10 makes me wonder. -- Dolotta (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dolotta: I wasn't very happy with the answer and followed up out of band - there is a "privacy" concern - short story, if you look at this user's userpage they have declared their alt/prior accounts that you may review. — xaosflux Talk 13:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose very regretfully switching here after this comment on his talk page. While I respect the right of individuals to express their opinion freely in a free society, Wikipedia is a private website that is both a volunteer community and a resource to the world. From both of these perspectives, we simply don’t have the luxury of defending bigots, regardless of what our life experience may be. I supported originally with no comment because I didn’t think any was needed: GMG is a friend and I have urged him to run for asminship multiple times in the past. I think he’d do a great job at most of the stuff and would be overwhelmingly positive. I know he’s no bigot, heck, he probably doesn’t have a bigoted bone in his body. That being said, I don’t think anyone should explicitly say that they reserve the right to defend bigots on a private website. The potential impact it has on the community is toxic. The potential it has to have a normalizing effect that can impact content is dangerous, and while I respect GMG and will always value his views, I don’t want an administrator who will give bigots grounds to stand on here, even if it’s just rhetorical.
    I had this opposed typed out and debated whether or not to actually do it. I then decided to look at the original block the Nazi comment was about: the context of that only made it worse. This was defending a user who made an edit claiming Obama hoped to disarm white Americans before a race war. Now, that was 18 months ago. Ordinarily, I would write that off as a lapse of judgement in defending this person, except, GMG has told us he doesn’t view it as a mistake. Very regretfully, I do see it as a major mistake, and I’m not comfortable having an admin who doesn’t understand why it would be one. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since question 16 relates to my oppose, I'll go ahead and reaffirm that it just confirms what I thought: I do not think we should give neo-Nazis the time of day if they ask for help. That's not assuming good faith, that's helping to create a toxic environment for good editors. I get where GMG is coming from, I really do, but this goes back to my original point: he doesn't seem to get the difference between talking to someone and trying to help them see the errors of their ways and maintaining a private website open to the public. I get people can disagree on this, and I respect those on the opposite side of me, but no, I am not comfortable at all with having someone have the unblock button with these views. Hopefully this will be the last post here for me, as I've already spoken too much, but I did want to address it since a lot of the opposes cite me, and this has the chance of going to 'crat chat. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While I understand the position about neo-Nazis, I dislike them strongly myself. But I strongly believe that just being a neo-Nazi isn't/shouldn't be a bannable offense. Obviously racist vandalism or other disruptive editing is a different story. It isn't really any different than someone wanting to ban hardcore communistists just because they are communistists, not for anything about what they are actually doing. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is if they are creating a toxic environment that impacts other users. If a hardcore communist was inserting conspiracy hate speech into articles and changing things around to dog whistle words, then no, I wouldn't give them the time of day either. The issue is not with the political identification, but with editors who create a toxic climate because their views cannot be reconciled with a collaborative project. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni:Fully agreed. Was mostly commenting because the only "defending neo-Nazis" that I have seen was an objection to blocking them just because they were a neo-Nazi, I will admit I haven't spent a lot of time digging up diffs other than what was link from here though. If they were actually blocked for disruptive editing, and GreenMeansGo was objecting to that, that is a different issue. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per SandyGeorgia, Bbb23, and TonyBallioni. It is my firm opinion that this is not an editor who should be given the tools at this time. Jusdafax (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I'm voting later than usual, because I was actually intending to sit this one out (rare for me). That said, although I'm never swayed by other voters, now that I've seen comments in line with impressions that I've held for quite some time, I'll say this: GMG does a lot of good work. His content is fine, not to mention a FA which he mastered almost single-handed - no mean task, and his knowledge of policy is more than adequate. However, perhaps I'm old fashioned, but I've never been very keen on his outspoken manner. He's gone into this RfA with a lack of modesty in the confidence that it will be a walk in the park and a fait accompli. I took a lot of flak on my RfA for a lot less, and that was in the days when 100+ support (no watchlist notices) was something to write home about (or in this case, tell my grandchildren), and every single oppose was a dangerous one. I don't believe that an offhand or ungraciously nonchalant or cool manner of expression is appropriate temperament for an admin; especially borderline PA (IMO) at Arbcom members (and I'm personally no fan of some people on that Committee). I hope that these issues that give me and others pause, will encourage GMG towards less flippant and unreflected commentary in the future. So as this RfA will probably pass anyway, I hope GMG doesn't take my comments too personally - I highly appreciate his participation and support on various topics, where however gruff, he usually gets it right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kudpung: "So as this RfA will probably pass anyway...." Famous last words. You know very well that people load up on other people's opposes and cause a pile-on (heck, you wrote the rule book for it)! See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ad Orientem Oppose #5. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kudpung: I feel like you're letting old-fashionedness get the better of you here. Nonchalance is perfectly acceptable on this website of unpaid volunteers, and cool is even better. 209.166.108.201 (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm old fashioned enough that I don't take a blind bit of notice of comments from single edit IPs and/or block evading IPs and VPNs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How about an admin you personally nominated? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, reluctantly. Like Tony, I was originally in the support column, but the concerns brought up by Martinp, Bbb23, and Kudpung have made me reconsider. I do still think that GMG is objectively experienced enough to be a good administrator, but his temperament, especially considering the answer to Q3, could become problematic. ansh666 07:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Reluctant Oppose per the problems discussed in above !votes Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  14. [[As Above...|Oppose]] L0URDES 08:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    RFA is stressful enough even if you get through it mostly unopposed; so using only a cutesy easter-egg link for your rationale's not such a good idea. —Cryptic 08:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They used the same sig when they supported.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Cryptic was not referencing the link in their signature, but the "Oppose"'word. Although it reads "Oppose", if links to As Above.... An album :) hence, C's link to EASTEREGG. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the confusion. I've reworked my !vote above to give deeper meaning and clarity. L0URDES 17:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - too many concerns above I'm afraid, not the correct attitude for an admin. GiantSnowman 09:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Regretful Oppose--Months back, I was one of the hopefuls about his RFA, when Sphilbrick was planning to nominate him.But, (whilst I have immense respect for his viewpoints), I'm not very comfortable about his behavior at the recent ArbCom case(s).Whilst, ensuring for accountability of sysops is a very good trait, his activities over the locus of the FPAS case seem to have squarely shifted into the territory of hyperbole, as Martin-P's examples point out.And, whilst I disagreed with Swarm's block of Tarage, I concur with BBB23 that I too didn't find GMG's commentary to be much helpful in the case.Also per this discussion and esp. per the comments of Tony.All that being said, he is a prolific content-creator, is almost-always helpful and that this RFA will likely pass, I've my faith that GMG will not abuse his tools.~ Winged BladesGodric 09:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Per above, so sorry. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose GMG believes that there is a certain threshold an editor should meet before they are allowed to voice an opinion. GMG is also condescending, which I do not think is a good characteristic for an administrator. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "GMG believes that there is a certain threshold an editor should meet before they are allowed to voice an opinion"? Where did he say this? Also, "GMG is also very condescending" is a very weak reason to oppose. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr Ernie: just a duplicate request to see any diff you might have - if there is a written comment saying something on these lines that would be more than sufficient to switch my vote. If not, then it's a bit harsh to note without citing. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nosebagbear I assume Ernie is talking about their interaction here Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Galobtter: thanks for that. Not insulting by GMG, nor odd given the context. A tad curt after a few comments which, tied with some of the issues discussed, makes me more concerned about how he would handle actually hostile conversations - reaction similar to one I'd make, but admins need to be calmer than me. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the delay - User:L293D, User:Nosebagbear, User:Galobtter see diffs here and here. GMG was belittling my contributions and somehow seemed to imply that I wasn't qualified to offer my opinion for community issues. It goes without saying that I am not a prolific editor, but of course I already know that. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of that is not that they were belittling your contributions; rather, that with ~300 mainspace edits in well over a decade, your sole purpose here is to comment upon meta issues without actually contributing to the broader purpose. I for one do not suggest that one cannot contribute to the project by making such an input; merely, that without the mainspace edits to back them up, one's experience will always be in doubt. What, after all, would be the point in commenting, when one is considered a noobie every time one does? I think "have you found mainspace" was (a perhaps blunt) way of advising you to write some articles / code / templates so that the community knows your meta-edits are based on something more than opinion. Imho, ymmv of course. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose after having expected to support. Per Martinp, SandyGeorgia, et al. The candidate seems to feel that civility may be optional; it is my bottom line that in this community, we cannot but be civil to one another without losing the community's strength and ability to fulfill its purpose. It is especially important for admins, who by the nature of the position, whether it is a Big Deal or not, are in a superior position in the community. This RfA will pass, doubtless; i hope the candidate will take on board some of the comments in opposes. Happy days, LindsayHello 15:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I've seen GMG around for a while now. While I think he's a brilliant editor and very dedicated to housekeeping, I've also seen him liable to POV pushing. The way American Guard was handled for example. His decision to boldly redirect even though there was a clear ongoing edit war was definitely not the optimal choice. Even the redirect target was a POV push. Though I agree with his POV on this, I still think it would have been far better to do a redirect discussion to ensure that bias wasn't playing a factor to be bold. This is just one example in many. I hope he continues to help with the project, just not as an Admin. Jcmcc (Talk) 15:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose (moved from support) - I was aware that GMG is a renamed editor, but I mistakenly assumed I knew what their former username was. As soon as I read it, I knew this was an editor I had felt was a concern if they went for the bit, and I couldn't remember why. I'll be criticized here for being vague, but there are some editors who, regardless of having the best intentions, give off an impression that they're not suited to be administrators. GMG's former persona was one of these, for me, and I see from comments that other editors have posted here that this has not changed, despite GMG doing very good work in a number of areas. As it turns out the incident that really stuck with me was this discussion in which GMG took to ANI to defend an editor who had just been blocked for the thirteenth time for incivility, tossing a rookie admin to the wolves in the process and leading to a different administrator leaving the project. Consensus was not with my point of view in this discussion and I respect that, but I also note that GMG was back at ANI three months later asking for that same user to be blocked again, for the same reasons. To me, GMG rushing to the defense of a serially uncivil editor ties into the thread that TonyBallioni posted about GMG's out-of-the-blue defense of a neo-Nazi editor, and I agree wholeheartedly with Tony's assessment of GMG's response this morning. Admins are human and we make mistakes, and there are those editors who deserve to be defended (there's a good example of this on ANI this morning), but having some sense of when to go to bat for someone is a key administrative proficiency, and GMG has gotten it wrong repeatedly. In particular, "making friends with bigots" is not an ideology compatible with adminship on this website, and if GMG intends to use the admin toolset to defend racists and Nazis I will not be surprised to see this at Arbcom in very short order. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Mainly per SandyGeorgia and Ivanvector. --John (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - While GMG excels at several areas, there are far too many concerns right now for me to support this RfA. Some of his comments at various ANI's make me nervous for how he might use the block button or handle difficult situations. The post he made at his talk page today is also very concerning for me. -- Dane talk 18:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose, moved from neutral. I feel bad about moving here. I was pleased by GMG's replies to me in the neutral section below, and I was becoming convinced that the feelers that I had put out were turning out to be insignificant. I logged in today fully expecting that I would move to support. But the information provided by TonyBallioni has forced me to change my mind. If I were to consider each negative issue in isolation, I would consider none of them, by themselves, to be sufficient reason to oppose. But a cumulative picture is emerging that unfortunately confirms my worst fears. I'm really sorry, because I see a lot of good things, but I cannot trust this candidate with the responsibilities. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose I refer to Martinp and SandyGeorgia posts. As an admin, you will be a chosen representative of Wikipedia. If you can not act in a civil manor, how can I trust that you will remain neutral and objective before hitting the "delete" button? Neovu79 (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose (moved from support) - Per Bbb, Tony, and Kudpung. Look, I had a strong inclination to oppose based on my recent interaction with GMG (referenced by Bbb), but based on the amount of support he was fielding, I wrote the whole thing off as a heated disagreement that I could not judge objectively, rather than part a behavioral problem on his part. I will continue to not hold that against him. However, I do think a sufficient case has otherwise been made regarding an overall lack of temperament and judgment, and they appear to have a tendency to become involved in drama in an unhelpful way. Kudpung is right regarding the lax, overconfident attitude during this RfA. Overconfidence is good in a job interview, but not in an admin. Respect and humility are needed, and should be fully on display. Regarding the whole bigotry thing on his talk page, I don't think there's anything wrong with his viewpoint, but it's not appropriate for this project. If someone's musing about race relations and their right to defend bigotry based on their victimhood during an RfA, that itself shows a lack of judgment. Strong emotional expressions of ideological motivations are not ideal, and while he's apologized for offending people and choosing his words poorly, that doesn't actually show any understanding of why it's not appropriate to be waxing-poetic about one's philosophical views on race and bigotry on a talk page, during an RfA. Swarm ♠ 20:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Regretful Oppose While I’m fairly sure you will pass this RFA I just can’t bring myself to support or even remain neutral. This comment on GMG’s talk page makes me uncomfortable, defending bigots is a time sink and ultimately drives away editors that could be productive but leave due to the toxic environment they encounter. GMG is a productive editor but the fact they are willing to sink into defending bigots unfortunately leads me to the supposition (which in all fairness may be wrong) that he may inadvertently contribute to editors leaving due to the previously mentioned toxic environment because they are being targeted. Further defending the editor that made this comment is, conduct that no administrator or administrator hopeful should engage in, in particular part of an administrator’s duties are to enforce discretionary sanctions. Both BLPs and American Politics are under discretionary sanctions, broadly construed. If GMG is busy defending people violating both of these sanctions as well as defending those that are obvious bigots and will make an environment too toxic for editors to contribute constructively I don’t think they are ready for the tools at this point. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose - Tries "making friends with bigots": need I say more? Wikipedia does not belong, nor should it try to reason with bigots and racists; an academic environment cannot survive under those conditions. What everyone else is saying above is just icing on the cake.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose because of the "Nazi" comment. I reached out to User:Hijiri88 for context regarding that discussion, so hopefully User:Hijiri88 can explain to us all what they were talking about, because it sounded like they had a big "misunderstanding". Brian Everlasting (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Per TonyBallioni.--Catlemur (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose I very rarely oppose RFAs, but reading some of the comments from Bbb23, SandyGeorgia, Tony Ballioni, Swarm, Kudpung etc., and looking back at some of my own views of the user's editing, especially at WP:ANI, I cannot support this at this time. I'm not bothered at all about the deletion stuff, but more the general impression of their attitude to editing and to other users. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. The examples in the links here show GMG too often fans the flames rather than helping to restore calm. I think GMG is a great beat cop but not as well suited to arm's-length administration. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose For a number of reasons, including the comments here from some editors whose judgment I respect; the fact that his edits to Wikipedia space are 15.3% of his total edits, and another 20.5% are to user talk; a feeling that there's a certain amount of caginess in some of GMG's answers, especially concerning his previous username; his self-nomination (I know that self-nomming is allowed, but I can't help think that someone with as high a profile as GMG should have been able to find a sponsor); and some vaguely remembered problems I took note of when he was editing under his previous name, but cannot recall the exact details of at this time. Individually, those would not be insurmountable problems, but together, they just pushed me from the neutral stance I originally approached this with to oppose. Ultimately, I guess, my concern is about GMG's temperament. Again, we have some admins who are aggressive and that some might say don't have the perfect "admin temperament", but who I think do a valuable service to the community. Who knows, maybe GMG would/will be one of those, but I'm just not certain enough about it to lend my support. I'll keep my eye on this RfA for the next couple of days to see if anything comes up to change my mind.
    Incidentally, GMG, please don't take offense: I wouldn't vote for me for admin, either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would. But of course that discussion belongs to some other page. L0URDES 00:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: Just to clarify, in their nom, GMG states here have been a few people who have offered to nominate me over the last little while, and I'll let them self-identify if they want to; one did, and another, I think, rather implied that they would too, so I think there's no question as to whether they would have got a sponsor matching their own high-profile  :) had they wanted one. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I wish that he had. Things happen, and circumstances can change, and the fact that someone was willing to nominate at a previous time is no guarantee that they would do so now. In any case, the self-nom was only one of a number of my rationales, and if everything else had been copacetic, I would almost certainly have overlooked it, as I've done before for nominees I thought were well-qualified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose: The candidate gives a vague reason for wanting the rights, and given that the candidate has a history of eagerly participating in ANI and political discussion, they are likely to push their viewpoints in using the rights. Esquivalience (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. I was going to sit this one out despite concerns about a renamed editor obfuscating their past identity, but the realisation of the previous identity coupled with the various diffs given above make me feel this editor is not temperamentally suited to adminship. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose, per TonyBallioni. The banning of the racist user mentioned by Tony made me feel very proud of Wikipedia. The idea that it was wrong is just... disqualifying to me. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose, per SandyGeorgia and Ivanvector. Froswo (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Regretful oppose given the concerns raised by SandyGeorgia and TonyBallioni. Richard0612 11:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose with regrets, per Toni and Tryptofish. --Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Moving to Neutral, after Floquenbeam's comment above. --Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. I don't believe an editor who wants to defend bigots should be an administrator. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose Per the above. There are social consequences for defending bigots. Protonk (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've yet to see any actual consequences hit Donald Trump despite numerous evidence of racism, sexism, misogyny, bigotry, and defending those who do similar with no empathy for anyone else. So if the President of the US can do it - by golly we can have an admin who does less. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you fucking kidding me with this reply. Protonk (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ..Ritchie, not sure if "better than trump" really helps your case Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also not support Donald Trump's RfA, and since you brought up the association, my objection would include the same reasons. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding a bit more color, in case this reaches the discretionary range. This comment is pathetic. That's not an attack, as it's clearly meant to be pathetic. We're meant to find pathos in their story about how they were bullied as a kid and use that pathos to understand how they could stand up for bigots because "I'm better than them". As the kids say, citation needed, since the defense of bigotry using a position of power is inseparable from bigotry itself. I don't want to hand over the tools to this person only to find out how unrepentant they are about defending bigots. We've got enough wikipedia administrators who carried water for hate groups, thank you. Frankly, the level of equivocation in this discussion is worrying. People, these are not hypothetical concerns! We're not worried about established users siding with nazis because it's something that's never happened before. We're worried about it because it's a pattern of behavior which we've seen and which is particularly pernicious. It's something we have to work against actively even, especially when it means disabusing people of impoverished interpretations of AGF and NPOV. Protonk (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose: I've been keeping an eye on this nomination since it began, and I honestly came here somewhat ready to support the candidate in question; unlike others, my issue is not with his defense of neo-Nazis, though that is a factor. Nor is my issue wholly regarding temperament, though I do have to echo Kudpung, Tony, and Beyond My Ken's comments. No, my real issue is the percentage of edits to Main-space, 46.6%. Now, I don't have any issue with folks branching off to do non-Main work, welcoming users, dealing with problem folks, etc., but Wikipedia, at its heart, is an encyclopedia. Our administrators should be encyclopedists, first and foremost, in my opinion. — Javert2113 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Javert2113: That's just ridiculous. There are plenty of people with many GA's and FA's who don't have more than 50% of edits to mainspace. Some article writers write entire sections or pages with only a few edits. If you judge a person by their contributions to writing the encyclopedia., do it by articles written, not by % of edits to mainspace. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) This is my last comment and then I'll hush up.... as you can see, I have less than 50% mainspace contributions myself, a similar figure to GMG. I have been criticised for the same problems mentioned at this RfA, including "cowboy unblocking" (or at least a tendency to avoid / criticise blocks), yelling at other admins (eg: Fram, RHaworth), and minor bouts of incivility (see opposes on my own RfA all of which are fair comment). However, I generally admit mistakes and apologise for them, as GMG is going here, and I have to commend him for his behaviour and attitude at this RfA. Yet I got about 98% support while it seems GMG is being shown the door. What a disappointment. RfA is a horrible and broken process. :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He isn't being shown the door, he currently has 78% support and if the RFA ends in the discretionary range, bureaucrats may well close it successful - I will be recused since I opposed. However, his supporters badgering and criticizing every oppose vote are not doing him any favors. Perhaps you would not pass an RFA today either. Andrevan@ 16:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333: I don't think it's a "broken process" at all. People have all kinds of different reasons -- some good, some bad,some debatable -- for supporting and opposing, and a robust (but civil) discussion is an indication of a working process, not a broken one. It's certainly much better than in the early days of the project, when "Sure, why not" was the prevailing attitude, and people were given the bit on the basis of a handful of votes. It's a cliche to say "Democracy is messy" -- and Wikipedia isn't a democracy -- but reaching a consensus can be messy as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)(x2) I just looked at the edit stats for 3 people who have clearly contributed to writing the encyclopedia (one of whom was Ritchie), and only one had 50% of contributions to mainspace, at 51%. Also, the mop doesn't help you write more articles, it actually detracts your overall content creation time (as more of your time will be spent blocking people, etc). So, it's a bad metric to judge an admin candidate by, and it isn't even measuring something that useful in an admin. Not to mention that some article writers have a lower percentage of article edits, as they put more information in a few edits than the average editor. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan: Also, I'm not sure about the statement that the supporters of GMG for adminship are "badgering every oppose". The total number of !votes with responses questioning that vote is roughly 25. Comparing it to RFAs with (somewhat) similar stats (I couldn't find any that had that had a very similar # of opposes) from last year (this and this|), this has lower responses to each oppose vote. So, this is a common occurrence in RFAs, and there is no more "badgering" than the average RFA. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    First, it's to be expected that administrators would have differing statistics from anyone going in for RfA, which would only increase as time goes on. Therefore, a comparison between your current edits, Ritchie, and GMG's is somewhat erroneous, and does not negate my qualms. And second, let me be clear: for RfAs, I always examine the totality of the circumstances; the combination of mainspace edit percentage, temperament, deportment, controversy, and, most especially, possible public response to said controversy (remember, as we are one of the most popular websites in the world, we should always be aware of the wider public, though our policies and procedures sometimes seem arcane) count for a great deal, among other things. So, while mainspace editing may count for, say, 46% of my opposition (not that it necessarily does), even if one were to remove such a category (as, apparently, some editors would like me to do), I would still lean toward opposing GMG as a sysop, on the other issues. — Javert2113 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  43. 104 to zero this in 48 hours is enough for me. Obviously something amiss. Leaky Caldron 17:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Leaky caldron: see Argumentum ad populum. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaky Caldron has a point. Actually, at its peak, this RFA stood at 108/0/1. Since then the votes have been about evenly split between support and oppose, and the word "Nazi" has been added about ten times (see Godwin's Law). The trend is definitely moving toward "no consensus." This may not be a valid reason to oppose per se, but it's no better or worse than opposing "per Martinp" or "per Andrevan." 23.30.178.93 (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify to satisfy the curious - I am not jumping on the bandwagon. I am simply convinced by the weight of valid opposes from respected editors that the trend is indicative of over-hasty supports (not unusual) whereas the opposes are significant and concerning enough for me to oppose. Leaky Caldron 09:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose per SandyGeorgia, Bbb23, BMK, Binksternet, Kudpung, Black Kite, TonyBallioni. It seems as if there is too much "gesture politics" for wikipedia noticeboards. Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose For two reasons. One: A soft approach is never warranted when it comes to obvious bigots or racists on Wikipedia. They are the antithesis to our project and should be shown the door. Two: This is per what TonyBallioni is stating below in the threaded discussion section. I get the impression that GMG would like to do what he feels is right rather than what the policies say is right regarding users he feels are blocked unfairly and will unblock against community norms. I view "cowboy unblocks" to be a slap in the face of the community and would not want more admins who accommodate this type of behavior. Valeince (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that statement to be deeply disturbing. The idea of blocking people for their beliefs or opinions can sound awfully attractive, until we dig into the question of which beliefs or opinions automatically render one persona non grata around here? The term "bigot" is a rather elastic word that means different things to different people. It certainly seems to have expanded its coverage quite a bit over the last three to five decades. Does this just cover racists or do we also include those who might not be all that hot for gay marriage? Where do we draw the line? And who gets to decide? Is it just Nazis we ban (they did kill several tens of millions of people), or do we also ban Communists (who arguably killed upwards of 100 million)? Ultimately all this runs contrary to what I have always understood to be part of our core principals. First that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and secondly that we are not censored. To be clear I regard willful ignorance, which IMHO opinion covers most forms of what we might label bigotry as among the greatest of sins. But that doesn't give me the right to block someone for it. The very first block I issued after getting the bit was a homophobic troll. But I didn't block him for his odious views. I blocked him because he was being a dick. Those who are here to push WP:FRINGE beliefs or to offend people (i.e. trolls) are an obvious specie of NOTHERE and therefor blockable. But the day we become the thought police and start blocking people because we don't like what they believe, vice what they are actually doing, is the day I hang up the RETIRED sign on my page and find some other way to kill 20-40+ hrs per week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a nice speech, but the user who got blocked was not just a closet Nazi, he was pushing racist alt-right POVs on articles. Andrevan@ 00:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is fine. My reply was to this, and by extension to some other comments that seemed to come very close to suggesting that we start blocking people for their views. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I should have been more clear when I talk about "bigots and racists". I'm talking about people who come to the Wiki to infect their skewed way of thinking into our article and talk space. This is done either with the way the edit, or how they interact with other users. I don't care if Bob Nobody thinks gays shouldn't have the same rights as other people, or if they think the Holocaust didn't happen; in their own private lives. But I sure as hell care if they use Wikipedia to proliferate those beliefs and I don't want admins in the corps that will help that. GMG called the block a proven on-wiki racist one of the worst he's seen. Maybe that is not how he feels now, but based off the evidence presented by other editors and what I can find of disputes the candidate has been in since then, I'm not sure if that is the case. Valeince (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your clarification which I greatly appreciate. And I completely agree that those who come here to push some kind of fringe agenda or to offend people by trumpeting outrageous views or just troll should be speedily blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose per Ivanvector, mostly. It is okay (and often necessary) to disagree with other editors, including administrators; but this diff demonstrates about the least constructive way to go about it. GMG not only made absolutely no effort to get along with Ivanvector, but completely distorted what Ivanvector said in his reply (suggesting that Ivanvector was issuing block threats, when Ivanvector had done no such thing). That is not a good attitude for any Wikipedian, and least of all for an administrator, not just because more is expected of administrators but also because an active sysop has no way to avoid interacting with a great many other editors – including many that they disagree with – whereas a regular editor might find an area to edit in where they wouldn't be likely to get in conflicts.
    That incident was a year ago; but other comments here, especially that of Martinp, indicate to me that GMG's attitude hasn't changed very much in that year. Indeed, one of the specific GMG lines that Martinp quoted ("I realize that ArbCom and common sense aren't always easy bedfellows") is very reminiscent of his similar implication a year earlier that Ivanvector lacked common sense. There's a continuing pattern of failing to show respect to editors he disagrees with, which is a serious shortcoming in a potential admin.
    We do need more sysops, and if GMG becomes one I wish him the best of luck and hope my concerns prove to have been misplaced. Sideways713 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. Candidate does not show the even (maybe dull) temperament desired in an administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  48. Oppose. Per lengthy and well-reasoned analysis from MartinP, SandyGeorgia, Bbb23, and others. We're not supposed to be here for the dramahz, we're supposed to be here for the encyclopedia. (By the way, GMG, it's not admin corpse, it's admin corps [pronounced core].) To anyone tempted to badger me: knock yourself out, I'll probably give the same attention to it that Roseanne Barr does to those who object when she expresses an opinion [c.f. Fallon's show this week]. – Athaenara ✉ 01:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose I think that there is a likelihood of admin actionsgiving rise to extended conflict. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC) ,[reply]
  50. Oppose, our interactions (mentioned in the opposes of a few others above) don't give me the confidence that he would use the admin tools wisely or that he has the right priorities, and other concerns raised above (like the Nazi incident) only reinforce that image. Fram (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose, per Sandy, Kudpung, Bbb, Tony, Black Kite et al, all of whom confirm to me the conclusion I had already personally reached from review that the candidate does not have the right temperament for adminship. Sorry. -- Begoon 07:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  52. We don't need to defend neo-Nazis or have debates with them. Even if someone is trying to be kind and think they're treating such a person with fairness...in the end, Nazis and their ilk advance their agenda by abusing the goodwill and tolerance of others. Sadly, I cannot support this RfA and, given the current closeness, I feel too strongly about the importance of opposing Nazis/their ilk to be an impartial bureaucrat when this candidacy ends. Acalamari 11:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  53. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be able to support this candidacy at this time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I don't have a problem with the "be nice to Nazis" stuff—GMGs wording was atrociously chosen (not a promising sign in a prospective admin), but "we shouldn't turn people away for their beliefs providing they don't allow those beliefs to affect their neutrality" is a legitimate position which I've also taken (and taken flak for) in the past. I do have a problem with what appears to be a complete temperamental incompatibility with adminship. It's taken a decade of change to wrench Wikipedia away from the "admins are power users" mentality and to the place we are now; GMG sometimes gives the impression of having a mindset that's been recently unthawed after being deep-frozen from the Wikipedia of 2006. I've seen far too many examples from GMG (in both incarnations) of behaviour indicating someone who sees the admin toolset as a set of tools for the purpose of helping admins win disputes, and who thinks blocking and protection are weapons to be used against people he considers enemies, not last-resort fallbacks for when all other solutions have failed. (I can fish out diffs if you really insist, although just clicking links here at random should furnish examples without too much difficulty.) DGG puts it most succinctly; I think that there is a likelihood of admin actionsgiving rise to extended conflict. ‑ Iridescent 2 12:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose - my observations of GMG's contributions at AN/I cause me to doubt they have the temperament to be the type of administrator we need. I see too much fanning of flames or plain unhelpful peanut-gallery type remarks. --Laser brain (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose per above sadly. Bobherry Talk Edits 13:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose regretfully. I'm not very conscious of having seen him around myself, but there are too many weighty figures in this section for me to support. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose per Iri and LaserBrain. I really don't care about the whole Nazi "controversy", but I do care about the temperament of admin candidates. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose, with regret - concerns about temperament, mainly. Patient Zerotalk 13:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. I had intended to vote oppose quite early on based on what I feel to be a too assertive attitude and a too firm belief that the user feels he is right. Some folks like their admins to be rough, tough, and decisive. I prefer mine to be a more more thoughtful and analytical. I hesitated because at that point there were only two opposes (and one had been withdrawn - though after some possible badgering/inappropriate questioning), so I wondered if I was being a bit too harsh. But, now, with what others have brought forward, combined with my original gut reaction, I am joining the oppose camp. SilkTork (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As the talk page discussion will tell you, there was no "badgering/inappropriate questioning": saying there was does not make it so. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say there was badgering, but there is now ;-) Look, if you want to discuss this seriously, drop me a note on my talkpage - I will engage with you there. If you interject inappropriately and incorrectly like this too much in an Rfa, somebody might jokingly give you the nickname Serial Badger 54129. SilkTork (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
(Moved to oppose) I'm putting myself in neutral for now, pending on what I come to think as the RfA goes on, but I'll make these comments now in order to see if they ring a bell with any other editors. Clearly, there are very strong positives here. But when I saw the RfA, I had a momentary feeling of discomfort. (Until reading here, I hadn't known about the previous account, with which I never had any issues.) For one thing, the comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Misuse of Administrator Tools strike me as misplaced sarcasm. Not disqualifying by any means, and a trivially small part of some excellent overall work, but still a bit "off". I also interacted with him at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Pioneer Tours, where our dialog was entirely civil and cooperative, but also left me a little uncomfortable, because I got a feeling that he was arguing that if an article could be kept, then it must be kept. On the other hand, I'd never oppose here simply because of disagreeing on one AfD. Obviously, these are very minor quibbles, at most. And I went through the entire contribution history for the last few months to make sure that I wasn't overlooking something else. I wasn't, and everything else looks spot-on. But this neutral comment is just for the time being, and I put it here early in the RfA in case it reminds anyone else of anything else. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting if he was strongly that can=should keep viewpoint, given such a strong deletionist voting history Nosebagbear (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm just being naïve, but I think you both are just talking past each other there. I read that as you each trying to make a point about notability, albeit from different directions. Just my $0.02. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tryptofish. This nomination is a big ball of IAR anyway, so why not, right? I appreciate your concerns, and honest to God, the two points you bring up are probably the exact two points I would bring up if I were vetting myself as a candidate.
So I don't actually consider myself deletionist at all it turns out. I think that if you start with an encyclopedia of indefinite length, then you start with the idea that if a neutral well sourced article can be written, then it should be written. So you end up with an interpretation of GNG at it's heart, which primarily asks whether such an article can, in principle, be written by a hypothetical perfect editor who speaks all languages and has unlimited time and access to every source in existence. You made some good arguments in that AfD and I respect good argument probably more than I respect pretty much anything else. I disagree with you, but disagreement is largely the oil that makes this machine work. So I think it's healthy, and I'm fine finding myself on the losing side, so long as I feel like I've put forth the best argument I have to offer.
As to my comments on ArbCom, that was...sarcasm in lieu of incivility. The entire case was bonkers. It was obvious misuse of the tools. Obvious, blatant, and egregious misuse of the tools. ArbCom can disagree with me, and that just makes ArbCom wrong. I'm happy to draw that line in the sand and sink or swim by it. We don't edit war over NPOV; we talk about NPOV and reach a consensus. Anyone who uses the tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute over NPOV should lose the tools. Period. Doing otherwise discourages our every-day editors who do honestly most of the heavy lifting as far as the content creation that makes us as valuable as we are, and sets a precedent that admins can do things that would get anyone else blocked, and do so without any repercussions whatsoever. Answering blatant misuse of the tools with a diluted warning is bonkers, and ArbCom themselves should be admonished for it. I stand by that unequivocally and without qualification. GMGtalk 07:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for these replies. GMG, it's interesting that you say those two examples were also the two most on your mind. Since they were, for me, the two principal places where you and I crossed paths in the past several months, it's entirely possible that, unluckily for you, I just happened to get a skewed impression. And even so, those two things are pretty small stuff for me, certainly not the sort of thing that, by itself, would make me oppose. (And I personally could not care less whether someone is inclusionist or deletionist, unless they go way over to one extreme or the other.) Indeed, I posted this because I had a feeling that my personal "sample" may have been misleading and I wanted to shine some light on it and see what would come back. And I still do. I note one of the oppose comments takes issue with your saying here, "sarcasm in lieu of incivility". I'm no stranger to sarcasm, myself, so I won't throw stones in a glass house. But I'd like you to consider civility in lieu of incivility. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fair criticism, and I totally accept it. I'm normally the bright eyed cheerleader for civility to the point of at times being almost cartoonish about it, and I'm normally the first in line to point out when someone needs to turn down. There are sometimes I think though that some levels of...frankness are appropriate depending on the setting. So, for example, I'm not the most active agent, but answering OTRS emails is absolute rock bottom. 100% bright eyed cheerleader mode, when you have to explain to someone like three times while they curse at you that no, I'm not an employee. You can't talk to my supervisor because I don't have one. We're not going to let you advertise your company on Wikipedia no matter how much you threaten me or how strongly you feel about it. But they often don't understand Wikipedia enough to even register an account, so you really have to take things slowly and explain very carefully.
The Teahouse and AfC are close ties for second. I will legit spend three weeks helping you write your article. I'll get excited about it and try to get you excited about it too. I completely remember the feeling I had when I registered my first account. I was super pumped to find a lot of people who were super pumped to write articles...and I basically found no one. Nothing. Nada. Empty talk pages where to this day no one has replied to posts I made ten years ago. I was discouraged, and I left. And I don't want people to have to go through that, and spend six years as an IP like I did, because I didn't find any reason not to. We have a great community of great people and I am totally willing to go out of my way and to the absolute end of my rope to introduce people to that because it's freaking awesome and I want people to know how freaking awesome it is.
Arbcom? They don't even make the cut. They are the most experienced of our most experienced of our most experienced. At some level, yes, I do expect them to be able to take frank criticism at face value. I'm fine with them throwing it back at me as good as I give it and it's not going to hurt my feelings any. If they want to tell me that I'm an idiot that shouldn't be let near a keyboard without adult supervision, then I'm not saying I will agree with them at all, but I will seriously take their opinion into account going forward and try to change my behavior so that they don't have that impression of me in the future. GMGtalk 22:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Neutral" means I really don't know. I've never had much reason to doubt GMG (or TJW's) knowledge of the rules or their judgment in relation to most administrative duties. And I have frequently found their comments to be helpful. On the other hand, there's this--plenty of drama, and part of it was caused by what I take to be a misreading on GMG's part of a (brief) comment by Black Kit ("Let's be clear about this - using "Paki" for Pakistani is exactly the same as using the N-word for a black person"). This led to a bunch of heated discussion, including about admins' wives, and it could have all been avoided if GMG hadn't jumped on what they thought the comment said--I am sure they thought the comment was something like "I'll block any person who uses the N-word". Anyway, that in itself isn't enough to oppose. I read over (most of) the linked discussions brought up by TonyBallioni, in whose judgment I have great faith, and that if I look at that one more time I may switch to oppose cause it wasn't good. Plus there's Bbb's oppose, also an occasion (two, actually) where GMG didn't look good. What's holding me back so far is Eric's support: we want admins who can write and who think about writing, and who can handle themselves well in content discussions.

    So far it looks like this is passing. If so, GMG, I hope you will consider some of the things that were said here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Neutral I was going to write a whole thing and found that Drmies already wrote it for me. I will say that if you're an admin and you chime in with comments like those in the diff given by TonyBallioni, you'd better have a damn good reason, and I do not believe that wanting to be their friend is good enough. This site is a high value target. Those people are here to spread their stuff, and it's our job to stop them. Period. But I'm going to think on it some more before deciding. GMG, regardless of how this turns out, I hope you think on the words given by some of our most experienced administrators in both their supports and opposes. Katietalk 23:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Still unsure about GMG as an admin. I think I trust him with the tools, but some of the opposes make valid points. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral (moved from support) Well I was impressed by the nomination and liked most of the answers, and thoroughly disagreed with concerns about GMG's AfD record, but I've spent way too long reading all these diffs to talk pages and now I'm not sure. Being opinionated and able to express viewpoints are both great traits, but I don't see GMG being able to express them very well. A laps in judgment and contentious words every so often, maybe, but this many examples? In the context of the project I don't really understand this whole friendly bigot thing... an extreme bias is one thing, but purposefully introducing harmful information to articles because of that bias? GMG, do you not think that harms your daughter's (and the world's) ability to use Wikipedia as a resource? This may not be directly related to your ability to use admin tools effectively but communication is, and I'm not sure if what you've recently demonstrated is what is expected of administrators. Rhinopias (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I came with an inclination to support, but reading through the answers and the rationales for supports and opposes leaves me in two minds, and unable to decide which way to go. I may settle on an answer after further thought, but given Drmies's comment above, I think this may be where I rest. - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral: Both those who support and oppose this RfA have good points and they have not swayed me either way. — MRD2014 Talk 12:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral (moved from support) based on some of the opposes above, and the nature of the responses from the candidate I'm withdrawing support and moving here. I think the candidate could make positive use of the broom at the areas indicated, but that their communication with other editors needs improvement - this is a critically important characteristic for admins here. As far as the "binding recall" pledge, in the absence of a community approved policy this is unenforceable so its nice to hear, but should not be considered a safety net of sorts. Should you succeed in this RfA, please take any negatives brought up seriously - it is always ok to NOT use admin tools, especially if there is any notion of bias. — xaosflux Talk 14:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux: It would be trivial to make a 'binding recall' enforceable — simply log it as a voluntary editing restriction resulting in an indef block until the procedures are followed. There would be some word smithing needed but that is a solvable problem. Jbh Talk 14:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Moved here from oppose. I think I'm going to sit this one out. --Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mahveotm (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • I don't think I am qualified to vote (or !vote, or whatever it is called), but I would just like to confirm how helpful GMG is to new users like myself(1, 2). Very grateful. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    GreyGreenWhy Feel free to !vote, the only qualification bar is having an account. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah! I'll be honest GreyGreenWhy. I am absolutely floored by how phenomenal that article turned out to be. Good on you for noticing that we were missing it! I never would have caught it in a hundred years, since the topic is so far outside what I normally work on. GMGtalk 13:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    GreyGreenWhy Do !vote!--Jetstreamer Talk 13:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does cyberbot's box on the main RfA page say "61/0/1" while this page says "61/0/0"? --Joshualouie711talk 15:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This one says 64/0/1 now, but there's no neutral votes. Perhaps it is malfunctioning and counting the "General comments" section as a neutral !vote. I'm not sure though. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    F#xed. L0URDES 16:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the comment above was originally left under neutral and then moved down here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s a longstanding bug with the tallying bot. Removing the hash symbol (#) in just the neutral section fixes it. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/331dot#Neutral count. Mz7 (alt) (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I have to say is that if this conversation [3] is what people were having an issue with, it seems a poor reason to oppose someone who it seems like would be a good admin. If the contention in the conversation, that someone was banned because they were a NAZI and not because of what they were actually doing, is true, it is extremely troubling and you can say that it is troubling and abuse without being in favor of NAZIs. *gets off the soap box* Zchrykng (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Partially because Drmies pinged me above, and also because this could possibly go to a 'crat chat and because others are commenting on it and other "temperament" issues above, I'll say a bit more about how this directly relates to the tools.
      The issue here is not that GMG wouldn't have blocked a neo-Nazi user: no admin is ever forced to use the tools, and I tend to prefer discussion on how to best move forward rather than unilateral action myself. No, the concern is that GMG has a history of overreacting when he disagrees with blocks, and I could easily see him being the type of admin who favours cowboy unblocks in controversial cases without discussion or even without contacting the blocking admin. I think Bbb23's links above show that this is a possibility. I'll go ahead and give another example: Elisa.rolle a prolific content creator for Women in Red who is also a prolific violator of our copyright policy, and who I eventually unblocked after consulting with Fram. This exchange is far from the type of interaction you would want between administrators over a block, and given the fact that he was helping her block evade and he hasn't exactly been quiet over the fact that he thinks Fram was wrong here, I don't think it's beyond the realm of belief that he would have unblocked here in what would reasonably been construed an involved unblock. Same with the recent Swarm block, which I personally wasn't a big fan of, but where I think GMG thought it was a bad enough decision that it is totally within the realm of possibility that he would unilaterally unblock. Neither of these would be wheel warring or abuse of tools in themselves, but they would contribute to increased community drama, more wasted time, and more hostility between administrators.
      Rounding back to the Nazi example and why this is important: I think there is a pretty high chance GMG might have unblocked that user. He said it was the worst block he had ever seen, admins are technically allowed to unblock on their own discretion, even thought the community discourages it, and GMG is usually pretty BOLD in trying to implement solutions that he thinks are for the best of the encyclopedia. That's normally good, but often, bold admin actions undertaken without consensus lead to controversy and damage to the community. I don't want to have to worry that when another admin blocks a white nationalist nutjob who happens to be creating good content in some areas that we might have to deal with an ANI thread reviewing the unblock, or worse yet, a wheel war when the original blocking admin is shocked and overreacts to a dumb unblock.
      Yes: these are all hypotheticals, I can't diff them because they haven't happened yet, but I can look at previous situations and say "if he had the bit, what would he have done then?" My answer: in at least one of the three scenarios I listed above, I think he would have unblocked on his own. In all three of those situations, I think that would have been the wrong move. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @TonyBallioni: Totally fair, thanks for explaining your position further. What you have said here makes far more sense to me than anything else I have seen in the oppose votes (though that might be because I didn't read carefully enough). Zchrykng (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive276#Ban Ritchie333 from unblocking - where the consensus was, although I have the same strong dislike of blocks for edits that are not for blatant vandalism, libel or copyvios, I don't go around pulling cowboy unblocks on people. I am sure GMG is the same. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: yeah, that thread was one of the examples I had in mind of wastes of community time we should want to avoid in the future (though I don't think it should have passed, and know that you don't generally do unilateral unblocks.)
GreenMeansGo, I struck the part about proxying. I was thinking of an example on her talk where she asked you to make an edit and you responded with done. I looked further into that, and it was just you reverting yourself at her request, which I can't hold against you. In terms of your portrayal of the situation, we have different views on it that likely aren't going to be reconciled here, so no need to add to this RfA on them :). TonyBallioni (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony, I don't read that archive link the same way you do. Is that how I want our sysops talking to each other? No. But I don't think GMG was particularly beyond (or close) to the pale, and I don't think it stretches anywhere near the worst of our crop. In fact, his own words at that page suggest rather than unblock, he'd prefer to slow things down, ask for other opinions, and discuss the issue (at length, clearly). As has been noted, one can "be right and be a dick at the same time." I'd like to see GMG be less stubborn (and verbose), but if stubbornness is disqualifying in a sysop, we are going to be short quite a few! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I am reading too much into it, and there are instances I recall where I thought he was alluding to it in a way to drive home a policy point where I disagreed pretty strongly with what he was saying (non-diffable because searching his name in the ANI/AN archives is next to impossible, but that isn't the main factor here.) My larger concern is similar to what Andrevan said to him on his talk page. He's willing to substitute his personal judgement based on his like experiences for that of other users who are making policy-based calls. Yeah, admins have discretion and IAR is a policy, but that discretion is based on the community trusting them to use it. That is why the discretion exists.
    I started off this RfA not even commenting in my support because I felt his record spoke for itself and this would be an RFX200 with virtually no opposes. I changed because of the incredibly poor judgement of thinking Wikipedia is a place you can show bigots the errors of their ways, and because I think he would use the admin tools to do that in a way that would overrule other admins (and if he doesn't use the tools, would have the ability to comment on AE appeals and the like.) So no, while I like him a lot and think he's a great editor, I don't have the confidence at this point to support or even be neutral on this RfA. My oppose has never been about "he doesn't hate Nazis enough". The oppose is about the poor judgement that he showed that coupled with his other interactions with administrators, does not leave me with confidence. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the current rate of decline, this may be subject to the discretion of bureaucrats. I wonder how many more of those supporting GMG would reverse their decision if they were aware of the diffs editors like Tony presented. Something for the crats to (possibly) consider, I suppose.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it’s safe to assume that most voters will be watching this until the end. Several supporters have in fact reaffirmed their support despite the diffs you mention. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Still supporting. Yintan  15:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm definitely watching - I've been reading all the opp diffs and am currently debating switching my support to neutral, and it's not impossible that it would become an oppose: and others will have similar viewpoints, I'd imagine. As PawnKingthree noted, multiple support voters are extending their answers significantly to cover it. I'm currently most concerned by an oppose comment saying that GMG ignores editor opinions from those with sufficient experience. A diff was requested and not yet supplied, so I've discounted it for now, but that would be sufficient to flip immediately. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I too am watching this; despite my comment reaffirming support above I'm still thinking over it. TonyBallioni's comment above is very convincing, and I definitely was unhappy about how they interacted with Fram regarding Elisa.Rolle, and not understanding Fram's concerns about having to clean up her articles, and the potential of future problems if she was left unblocked, wasting people's time. (of which that work, copyright cleanup, is often very underappreciated too despite being quite valuable). And I asked a question above because I too have a feeling about controversial unblocks possibly occurring. I'm basically waiting for GMG to respond and to get a little more information before switching/not switching my !vote Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel somewhat reassured by GMG's response to my question Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still supporting too. While I respect TonyBallioni, lack of Nazi hate, deletionism, and sometimes hot temper is not enough to oppose. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm noting that GMG now has a "Neo-Nazi controversy" or "Neo-Nazi incident"..which is interesting.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is getting out of hand. Too many assumptions, too much conclusion jumping, and definitely an over-the-top name for something like that. Yintan  21:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help but wonder what the article Adolf_Hitler might have looked like had it been written today. Atsme📞📧 21:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, GMG went from treating a possible troll too normally to "defending Nazis" to now having a major Neo-Nazi controversy that's going to sink his RfA. Many opposers say that they know the RfA will pass anyway, but they were just leaving some constructive feedback in the Oppose section. The thing the opposers don't understand is that at length, the RfA is actually going to fail, and then many people will think "What the heck happened to this RfA?" and then realize "oh, damn, I left my feedback in the oppose section". L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that, should this RfA fall within the discretionary range, the closing crat(s) will weigh the "this is going to pass, so I'll just leave my objections here" opposes with the weight that they deserve. --Joshualouie711talk 02:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever seen such a back-and-forth of voting on an RfA in all my time. The oppose votes mostly have very strong arguments. Without guessing on the final outcome, as it looks now (77%), if I were a crat I would call for a crat chat and impress upon my colleagues that the strength of the arguments and the neutrals, should be taken very carefully into consideration. The interesting thing is, that according to WP:RfA (reading perhaps between the lines), even if it's just marginally above the discretionary zone, a crat 'could' still exercise discretion based on the strenghth of the comments - and, well noted, take the neutrals into consideration. BTW, there isn't actually an obligation for a crat chat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GreenMeansGo&oldid=1074853891"