Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Galobtter

Is there a reason why folks are posting questions without signatures? This should be rectified because it's outside of the norm for every other discussion venue on Wikipedia and of particular concerns as some of the questions seem rather WP:POINTY.12:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs)

@MrX: Indeed, but it's not the norm for RfA, because it's (I think) the only place where the questioners' name is given in the header. In any case, see previous RfAs also not doing so. ——SerialNumber54129 12:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Serial Number 54129. I did figure that out and removed my question while (I assume) you were writing your response. It's still too early in the morning...- MrX 🖋 12:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies MrX, feel free to remove this again! I got an edit conflict but the beta version edit-conflict page is abso*******lutely confusing and I couldn't get out of it. Sorry about that! ——SerialNumber54129 12:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flooded with them hundreds, regarding this and this, Alex Shih means what WP:TALK states about altering or removing a comment after someone has responded to it. The replies are now missing context. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do now? I don't want my comments to be there. I think the context doesn't really matter much now that I've withdrawn the oppose and anyone could still see the original comments in the history so it'll be great to leave as is. Flooded with them hundreds 11:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REDACT. You should strike (put a line through) unwanted text. Leaky Caldron 11:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let us move the discussion here. —Kusma (t·c) 12:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose, doesn't stand out compared to other qualified editors, with just 25k edits and only started editing actively less than a year ago. No GAs or DYKs, no solid need for the tool (intention to work at TfD, RfD and copyvios is mentioned but the first two can be done via the "holding cell" and he hasn't contributed much to the 3rd area - just 12 speedy nominations for copyvio out of 200+). 30% of his mainspace edits are automated, 1000+ of his edits are to Donald Trump and its associated talk page that are mostly reverts and removal of other editor contributions. With just 16 created articles (9 of those created in the past few months) that are mostly splits from other articles (i.e. List of honors and awards received by Donald Trump), disambiguations, stubs and redirects that were later expanded by other editors (i.e. Pardon of Joe Arpaio). His best created article seems to be less than 17,000 bytes, somewhere between stub and Start-class. Galobtter is a handsome editor, we've interacted multiple times but I think he'll become truly qualified in the coming years, as right now he does not meet my RfA criteria and I must oppose for all the above reasons despite the likelihood of this RfA passing is very high as I believe he's likable enough for the community to accept him as an administrator. The nominators for this candidate are highly-respected but I don't believe a candidate should be supported merely because they have the backing of good nominators. Flooded with them hundreds 12:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Without touching on your criteria, let me just say that RfD has no "holding cell" and Galo has been a thoughtful and considerate contributor there, and would be a huge hand; there are only a handful of us active at RfD. As for copyvio work, you may not be aware that there is more than just the blunt instrument of G12; Galobtter has done a number of reversions and requests for WP:RD1 redaction via {{revdel}}, a review of which appear to be quite appropriate and well done. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

   Yes, I think in this day and age it's not a very big number for edits. Flooded with them hundreds 16:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Flooded with them hundreds, these criteria of yours were very confusing to me at first, and then I checked the history. You seemed to have created this today. I then thought them very odd, so I dug around. May 2016 is a very specific day, but that’s when your previous account Zawl became active. 7 blocks is also highly specific and about 6 too many for most RfA voters, as you know, but then I looked at the Zawl block log and see 6 blocks here and one on commons. You also claim 42 articles created through August, so I’m assuming you have around 50 now.

   What it looks like to me is that you’re trying to prove a point by creating a numerical criteria you can pass but most other candidates can’t in some way to prove a point after your RfA was snow closed (this being the first since then.) That seems pretty POINTy to me, and I’m raising it for the closing crat. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

   While the badgering of those who cast opposing votes, no matter how wrong-headed they might seem, seems often to be more disruptive than the oppose votes themselves, this one seems questionable in its good faith[1]. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 16:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Whether we agree with Flooded with them hundreds or not, which I personally don't by the way, they voted in good faith, and we all need to step back and let this vote respectfully stand. At least for me, I'm going to take a wait-and-see approach before casting my !vote. Neovu79 (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   @TonyBallioni: Flooded with them hundreds's RFA criteria are perfectly reasonable, users should become administrators only after they have a significant amount of experience creating and improving articles, and the blocks are not important provided that they occurred a sufficiently long time ago. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   No, Eli355, they are not. They are criteria created in bad faith to oppose the first person that opposed opposed his failed RfA last month. As I said above, that deserves to be addressed publicly and since this RfA isn't in the 90s, it is important for the 'crats to know the history here and see that what we have is a teenager (self-disclosed) pitching a fit because he didn't get what he wanted last month. Anyway, I won't reply anymore as I've made my point, but I did want to address the ping/remarks above (also, no one archive this to the talk please. It should be public.) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   @TonyBallioni: What makes you so sure that these criteria were created in bad faith? —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't see any bad faith in those RfA criteria, they look like something learned from reasonable rationales presented by other editors. I frankly don't understand this degree of disdain, even dislike. – Athaenara ✉ 22:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   They were literally created the exact same minute that he cast this vote and specifically match his exact situation while excluding what would be a significant number of RfA candidates but carving out a massive exemption for himself that no other reasonable person would carve out. And the user who he deployed them on just happens to be the first person to oppose his RfA. Sorry, but if that's not bad faith in RfA voting, I don't think I'll ever see it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree with Tony, this whole "oppose" vote feels like it was made in bad faith as a revenge for the Flooded with them hundreds failed RfA, nothing more. Especially considering that there were other accusations of vengeful behavior by other editors on this voter's talk page, particularly the conversation which began with this edit.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Flooded, you struck out your "oppose" !vote on the discussion page. I didn't think you intended for it not to be counted, and I have removed the strikeout. If I have misunderstood, and you really did want to withdraw your !vote and not have it counted as a oppose, please restore the strikeout. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I struck and un-counted it again as per this diff. —Kusma (t·c) 19:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]