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 kindof 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. GMGtalk23:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: 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., 1234567), parks (e.g., 12345) 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 limitoftwo 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.
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. GMGtalk10:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. GMGtalk11:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. GMGtalk11:21, 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. GMGtalk11:35, 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. GMGtalk11:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. GMGtalk12:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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? — xaosfluxTalk18:15, 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. GMGtalk18:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. GMGtalk22:12, 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]
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. GMGtalk16:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. GMGtalk15:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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✡Discuss01:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC), ammended 21:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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. EricCorbett01:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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. :) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 05:31, 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]
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! --TheSandDoctorTalk06:21, 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]
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]
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]
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]
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 contribs11:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support Thankfully, now he'll stop pestering me. In your own words GMG, now "go be an admin and do admin things." L0URDES13:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC) (With regret, moving to oppose, L0URDES)[reply]
Support But, avoid history merges for awhile. They are pretty simple to do, but tedious to fix if you mess up.--v/r - TP14:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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. Cullen328Let's discuss it16:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(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 SoWhy17:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Happy to pile on I've seen GMG around, and I like what I see (especially their rationale for the self-nom). Excellent candidate. Miniapolis19:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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 :) — MusikAnimaltalk20:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – impressively genuine nomination and answers, plus things said by many others. This talk of GMG's AfD record is silly. His voting record is a higher percentage than what's generally needed to pass a request for adminship, and the point of AfD is to suggest articles for deletion so why is it shocking that a user would end up accumulating "delete" votes? Not to mention GMG writes content, so I hardly see the concern over him voting for a few articles to be deleted. Rhinopias (talk) 22:25, 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]
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]
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]
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]
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 512What will you say? / What did I do?13:35, 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. — xaosfluxTalk15:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 Talk16:05, 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
@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 BladesGodric10:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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+Karate12:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Support. Concerns about a candid, honest statement on his own talk page are utter horse shitnonsense 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'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]
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]
Support - mainly because of someof 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]
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 saying this only for the venial/parochial reason of having also graduated from a public university in the Commonwealth. Howgh. The South shall rise again. --Mareklugtalk21:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
#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]
Yeah, Kentucky is a pretty crap state, unless you're into hiking and whitewater. In which case it turns out to be pretty awesome. GMGtalk22:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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? - theWOLFchild23:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
That they are "clearly a deletionist". Collect struck his vote but his concerns are still relevant. This RfA will probably pass, but that doesn't mean I can't have concerns about their deletion patterns. Please read all of other people's comments before badgering Oppose voters. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... you consider one, simple question as "badgering"...? Why not just add your reasons in the first place instead of insisting that everyone read all of other people's comments before... [seeking clarification]? Wouldn't that be simpler? Anyway, thank you for the additional info. - theWOLFchild18:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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 | Talk02:59, 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]
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]
@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. — xaosfluxTalk13:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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. ansh66607:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 BladesGodric09:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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, LindsayHello15:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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. -- Danetalk18:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Neutral
(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]
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. GMGtalk07:03, 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 communityofgreat 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. GMGtalk22:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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. GMGtalk13:13, 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]
. Good luck GMG! --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Home Lander (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
