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

GeneralizationsAreBad

Final (205/0/2); Closed as successful by — xaosflux ^Talk at 15:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Nomination

GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk · contribs) – GeneralizationsAreBad (GAB) is a bit of an all-rounder. He's done some good military history writing for the project, including being the primary contributor to the featured article Operation Infinite Reach and getting 1995 CIA disinformation controversy to good article status almost single-handedly. He's a regular at Articles for deletion, where he consistently shows good judgement and regularly gets consensus to agree with him. And he's proficient with sockpuppet investigations, becoming a clerk last November.

GAB had a previous RfA about 15 months ago, where a key theme of opposition was "not enough experience". We've asked a couple of the key oppose voters from last time what they think now, and I get a general consensus from them that he's ready for the tools. Not only has he increased his output in content and sockpuppet investigations, his talk page is full of polite and courteous discussions on all manner of topics. He's also got a number of admins banging at his door to get him to run again, so that's what we're doing. I think he's a worthy and valuable addition to the admin corps. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you so much for your support - I accept the nomination, and look forward to hearing from the community. GAB ^gab 15:09, 6 July 2017 (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: My main reason for seeking the tools is to improve my SPI clerking. With the ability to block socks, view deleted pages, and histmerge cases, I can take the burden off of other clerks and deal with the perpetual SPI backlog far more efficiently. I also conduct a large amount of independent sockhunting, and being able to see deleted creations would enable me to track down promotional sockfarms ( example) much more easily. I also plan on assisting with AIV, UAA, RFPP, and the like. I'm a naturally curious person with a variety of interests, and while I don't see myself getting extensively involved in dramah zones such as ANI or AE, I hope to expand my work to include AFD and perhaps others. I hope to acquire new skills and areas in which to work, rather than stick to the same old, same old.

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

A: My best contributions are probably Operation Infinite Reach (FA), 1995 CIA disinformation controversy (GA), and Carré d'As IV incident (GA). The former took months of research, using quite a number (17) of books, news articles, and other sources - even poll data. It also went through a lengthy FA process that - with the help of friendly editors - got it to excellent shape. The CIA article was written from scratch; I enjoy creating and improving content on these obscure controversies and events that don't always get extensive publicity. Finally, the latter required some detective work to track down various sources and piece together the story of a Somali pirate attack. I'm also proud of my SPI filing and clerking, including cases such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Motivação - these best illustrate my analytic skills and ability to investigate socking.

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: In the past, I have indeed dealt with some substantial stress over editing. One example was when I was targeted and trolled for some time by an LTA, which had me upset and on edge for a while. This extended to talkpage harassment, insulting usernames, and so on. Semi-protection was not much of a reprieve, as this person was obsessively persistent. Today, I consider this a significant milestone for me: I was able to keep a cool head, revert the trolling as it came up, and avoid getting too bothered; after all, if I just stopped editing, I'd be giving this person what they wanted. As an SPI clerk, I deal with these sorts of LTAs on a regular basis, and I've learned to keep a thick skin and avoid taking any invective too personally - a useful skill for editing here, overall. Whenever I find myself in a stressful situation, I'm able to take a deep breath, walk away for a bit if need be, and come back fresh.

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 Deryck Chan

4. You said you want to use the privilege to view deleted edits in the context of sockpuppet investigations and maybe AfDs, and also that you're a curious person. Where do you draw the line between appropriate and inappropriate use the privilege to view deleted edits?

A: Good question. I will never use this ability - for myself or others - out of curiosity alone. There must be a discrete, reasonable and Wikipedia-related purpose behind it, not mere interest. If asked by a fellow editor with a specific reason to view the deleted page (i.e. they intend to incubate it in their userspace and develop it into a full-fledged article, or they want to draftify it), I would do so. If an article is deleted as an attack page or the like, I will not view it without a highly compelling reason, such as sockpuppetry, block reviews, or the like. I will treat deleted edits even more stringently, as they are (in my experience) even more likely to contain debasing material (or worse). Best to err on the side of discretion. I am a curious person, but I recognize the proper limits of my curiosity, and will use my ability for work only.

Additional question from Linguist111

5. As you are a non-administrator involved in SPI, an administrative area, I would like to know, which of the following hypothetical administrative actions you think would be acceptable to be performed by uninvolved non-administrators:

1. Speedy closure of a bad faith request for adminship by a user who admits to being a sock of Starship9000, where nobody has voted.
2. WP:SNOW closure of a good faith request for adminship by a user with a 3-week-old account in which 15 users have voted, all of them voting "oppose per WP:NOTNOW" and most of them requesting WP:SNOW closes.
3. Closure of an articles for deletion discussion in which nobody except the nom has voted after three relists, and the discussion was opened following a contested PROD, as no consensus.
4. Closure of an AfD discussion in which only one other user voted (simply voting "Keep" with no rationale) between the opening of the discussion and the end of the week following the third relist, where the article was neither PRODed nor AfDed in the past, as no consensus.
5. Declining or removal of an unblock request of "I am not doing anything wrong. Please unblock Tikeem" made by a CheckUser-blocked sockpuppet of Tikeem cumberbatch uttp tcgp own.
6. "Technical" declining of a good-faith unblock request which has not yet been reviewed, while the block has already expired.
7. Closure of an AfD after a full listing period in which 10 people have voted, and every voter has provided a good, policy-based delete vote, as delete, but the page has not yet been deleted.
8. Archiving of an SPI case which was closed 25 days prior.

A: Alright:

1. Yes - according to RFA closing procedures,"If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW." G5 or G6 might be appropriate, as per WP:DENY.
2. I would be more hesitant to close, but I would cautiously say that closing as per SNOW would be appropriate. That being said, I try to play it safe, and so it's not something I'd necessarily do, myself. Perhaps for a non-admin with more experience in this area.
3. This is definitely a case of WP:NOQUORUM. In this case, I think it would be best to leave the AFD be and wait for an admin to review it. One possible outcome is "soft deletion," which is not something a non-admin can perform, of course!
4. It's ideal to avoid no-consensus closes generally, and these should be left to admins, who are generally more experienced in assessing consensus in a discussion. WP:BADNAC may not be policy, per se, but sums it up pretty admirably. It may seem tempting to close as "delete," but this is not within the purview for non-admins, since they cannot actually delete the page.
5. No, as a non-administrator, I should not be performing or removing unblock reviews, period. I'd leave it to an admin to handle.
6. As a non-admin, I would not involve myself in unblock reviews, technical or otherwise. Once again, this is the domain of admins, and I'd be better off spending my time clerking
7. No, non-admins may be able to close AFDs, but (as mentioned above) they should not close as delete, since they cannot actually delete the page themselves. See WP:NACD: "Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement."
8. Yes, as long as I wasn't the editor who had initially closed the case, and provided I was a clerk. At SPI, we have two different editors close and archive the case, as a sort of checks-and-balances procedure, and only clerks or CUs can archive cases.

Additional questions from George Ho

6. Hello. I see you are interested in the SPI area. Just wondering, if you plan to obtain the CheckUser right, how will you use it?

A: Well, that would be quite a ways away, and it's not something I'm currently considering. I would first need to study up on my computer science, since that background knowledge would be absolutely critical for proper usage of the tool. If I did indeed receive the right, I would primarily use it in conjunction with SPI, checking accounts as per clerks' requests, evaluating rangeblocks, and conducting independent investigations. I would try to be as transparent as possible by filing pro forma cases, asking other CUs to review my results if needed, and generally explaining the rationales behind my checks. Once again, it's not in the near future, but I wouldn't want to rule anything out altogether.

Follow-up... I hope. Thanks for your thoughtful response. Oh boy. I hope I get this right. Here's my follow-up question: If you obtain the CU right, and you found the match between one IP address and one user, what reasons would you disclose or undisclosed that information? If anyone feels that this isn't a follow-up question, feel free to remove this please. Thanks. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

A: Well, the circumstances in which this can happen are really limited, and I don't think I've ever seen this actually happen during my tenure here. One of the very few times I've read about it is this case. I don't know if it was more acceptable in past years than it is now. As per our checkuser policy, we need to be very careful about linking IPs and users, since there are serious privacy implications. If the abuse was as extraordinarily severe as in the Morning277 case, I might consider releasing a large range ("larger ranges mean a less specific connection can be drawn.") Regardless, I'd make sure to double-check with fellow CUs before disclosing IPs - better to get a second opinion on whether it's necessary. If the IP and user are clearly being used to sock, it's possible to CU-block them for that without explicitly revealing their IP; CU-blocks for logged-out socking are not unheard-of. The key thing is keeping privacy in mind, alongside the need to combat socking.

7. Besides areas that require administrative assistance, what article topics interest you the most?

A: I'm interested in a pretty broad array of areas, including history, foreign policy, defense, and intelligence. For instance, I recently copyedited 1981 Iranian Prime Minister's office bombing and Karam Singh for WP:GOCE, and I'm currently working on copyediting Whataboutism. I particularly enjoy editing articles on small-scale clashes (what one scholar has called "discrete military operations") and terrorist attacks - not only do I find these subjects interesting, but the pages are often neglected and really need some attention. Operation Infinite Reach started out as this, and Carré d'As IV incident as this. I can really immerse myself in editing the topics I enjoy, and devote considerable time researching, writing, and tweaking them.

Additional question from RileyBugz

8. What do you do if you see a user asking a question at the help desk that has, so far, made all of their edits (about 250) in their userspace. These edits look like test edits.

A: ( edit conflict) It would really depend on what the question was - if I knew the answer and was able to help them, I'd go ahead and do so. Provided I don't see anything malicious, I'd assume good faith and welcome them to the site, offering them a brief run-through of policies, advice, and helpful links ( WP:YFA, WP:TWA, etc.) I might suggest some areas in which they could get started, such as adding references to unreferenced pages or copyediting. Basically, I'd try to help introduce them to constructively editing the mainspace. If the user is very new (i.e. less than a week or so) and has made 250 edits, that averages out to at least 35 edits a day. This might mean that they are very energetic, curious about the site, and eager to start learning the ropes, or it could signify that they need to take it a bit slower and get acquainted with our project's purpose, procedures, and rules. Regardless, I would take care to avoid biting them, especially since our best editors were surely once in their shoes.

Additional question from BU Rob13

9. I'd like to ask a follow-up to RileyBugz's question. Same scenario, but you notice the edits to userspace appear to be test edits that add or remove one character at a time on their user page. The question they ask at the help desk is "I'd like to edit Israel but it says I can't. Please help.". Does your answer change?

A: This looks like a pretty textbook case of someone attempting to game WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 through junk edits. I would be less bound to WP:AGF, but would explain the web of sanctions surrounding the subject area - some of the most elaborate on our site - and perhaps advise them to edit elsewhere, on a less contentious topic. I would also be sure to keep an eye on their edits regardless, and perhaps contact another admin or CU working in the area; I might even do some SPI archival research to see if there's a link to a known master ( NoCal100 ( talk · contribs · count)?) I wouldn't jump to conclusions and charge malicious intent, but I'd be much more vigilant in monitoring them. For what it's worth, it seems that there's a similar situation right now at ANI

@ GeneralizationsAreBad: Good answer. I wouldn't expect you to know this since you haven't actually done enforcement in this area and those who do obfuscate how we find certain types of socks for WP:BEANS reasons, but there are so many masters following this pattern that it's pointless to try to connect to any one; they all blend together. Seeking a CU is the only way to connect to an individual master with the pattern of facts I laid out. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 13:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Additional question from Callmemirela

10: Should you be involved in a dispute and find something actionable as an admin, what would you do? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

A: If I'm involved and notice something actionable, I'm no longer permitted to take admin action in that situation except in egregious circumstances. It's a bit like how a pitcher, once they step off the mound, becomes just another infielder; certain actions aren't allowed on the mound and are considered balks. With indisputable vandalism, it may be acceptable to take action, but I'd want to avoid imposing sanctions in more borderline situations (editors in disputes often accuse the other of vandalism). Instead, I might - for instance - ask for additional eyes on the page from other editors and uninvolved admins. For me, the key thing is to err on the side of caution, and to allow other uninvolved admins to monitor the situation (and intervene, if need be).

Additional question from L3X1

11 A UAA question:

• Angry Grandpa, 2 edits to UP, 1 edit of removing a double space
  
• GETRECKTNEILNUFOOL, no edits
  
• Niggazwihtattitude, 17 constructive edits over a 4 day period
  
• lose the h8erz, 1 edit
  
• ois·fla˚uoi92348·23badnaskhf, 8 edits which were GF reverted as improper, says that they picked their name so "people wouldn't judge them"
  

A:

1. Nothing actionable here, considering there's nothing objectionable about the username.
2. I'd block as a disruptive name containing a personal attack against a user (sorry, NeilN...)
3. If their editing is constructive, it complicates the picture slightly. Nevertheless, considering it is a) objectionable and b) implying shared use (although the latter is not the main issue), I would immediately ask them to change their name to something inoffensive. "Guyzwihtattitude"? "Boyzwihtattitude"? Take your pick. If they didn't do so after a reasonable amount of time, I would then softblock. Some would softblock first, but I would give them a chance.
4. This doesn't seem particularly actionable, either. Maybe keep an eye on them, though.
5. I would ask them to change their username, considering those characters are going to cause people some real headaches trying to type. I wouldn't summarily block them, but rather ask them to use something alphanumeric. Due to the reverts, I might also keep an eye on their editing, perhaps offering a word of advice.

Additional question from Gerda

12: OTD Joan of Arc was declared innocent. Jeanne d'Arc au bûcher was recently protected. Let's assume for a moment that you are already an experienced admin: would you have done the same, and why, or why not?

A: From what I can see, it looks like that page saw some edit-warring from an individual using IPs to add an infobox. Given the 4 different IPs making reverts in the first round, I think a brief round of protection was justified to prevent further disruption, as this individual was clearly not communicating. I also concur with the block on 82.132.246.110 for the same reason (they were, collectively, over 3RR - 1, 2, 3, 4). Afterwards, more IPs showed up to continue the edit-war, and were blocked. If more of them had showed up, I would have considered reinstating the protection for the same duration, and extending it, if necessary. The page currently gets very few views and even fewer IP edits, so the collateral damage would probably have been marginal.

Follow-up: You looked, - thank you. What do you think about the "other side", asking the IP to justify a feature the IP had not added? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

A: Well, I disagree with certain aspects of how this was handled. Some of the language used strikes me as inappropriate and insulting. I'm glad there was an attempt to start dialogue, and there were other attempts to warn the IP of edit-warring. I wish the discussion was started earlier, by the editor who removed the infobox, since this would follow WP:BRD - which was cited against the IP. Nevertheless, while revert 1 may have been in good faith, the subsequent edit-warring against 2 other editors did merit a block/page protection.

Additional question from Jonathunder

13: Should multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, be disallowed, and why not?

A: My view on this: Each question should deal with a specific, identifiable topic, and questions that attempt to discuss more than one unrelated topic should be disallowed. I don't object to the UAA questions, since any admin working in the area will have to deal with these different scenarios, and the question itself is focused. But if a question incorporates several unrelated subjects, such as copyediting, blocking, etc., then it's clearly an attempt to evade and should be cut down to size. That being said, questions on different subjects are a good thing (provided they are relevant to a candidate's intended work areas), as they challenge a candidate's breadth of knowledge and experience. I guess I'm less stringent than others might be, since I enjoy answering questions

Additional question from SoWhy

14. Back in March you tagged a couple of pages for speedy deletion, including Jennifer Walske, Anthony Gill (professor) and Andrew Essex. Can you explain why you believe these pages were eligible for speedy deletion and would you have deleted them if you had been an admin at this time?

A: This stemmed from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arunkapadia, a large promotional operation that we discovered. Each of those articles was created by a sockpuppet as part of a paid-editing scheme. In this case, after being advised that the sockfarm's creations should be deleted as TOU violations, I CSD-tagged those articles. At the time, I had WP:IAR in mind; in hindsight, I should have instead PROD'd the pages or sent them to AFD. While these pages were likely eligible for deletion, AFD or PROD - not CSD - were the correct options. I have since redoubled my attention to correct CSD tagging.

Follow-up (in response to comments below): I understand that these particular taggings were hasty, and I apologize to the page creators for the trouble. Since those declines, I've taken care to give creators more room to develop their pages. I understand your concerns over this, because editors have a right to know whether I would approach the deletion process fairly. I've reviewed my A7 tagging history: Out of 492 A7 tags, about 10 were either declined by other editors or removed by the creators as they expanded the article, giving a rate of roughly 2%. This is in line with Ritchie333's count. In short, the problem lay with tagging speed, rather than a misunderstanding of deletion criteria. If granted the tools, I will be sure to perform due diligence, checking CSD-tagged pages' histories before deleting them.

Additional question from Esquivalience

15. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under a previous account or IP address?

A: I have never used a previous account, but starting sporadically in February 2014, and only picking up in October of that year, I did edit as an IP, making about 100 edits. I was (and still am) an avid reader of our articles, and my editing was mainly copyediting and the like. Around that same time, I was reading old disputes on talkpages ( Battle of Berlin was one), RFCs, policy pages, arbcom cases, etc., so once I did get around to registering, I came in with a decent knowledge of how to edit and what behaviors to avoid.

Additional question from Northamerica1000

16. What can be done to improve the availability of collaborations on English Wikipedia?

A: @ Northamerica1000: That's quite an original question. Part of the difficulty lies in the inherent tension between building a cordial community and the oft-cited policy that we are not a social network. I've also seen collaborative projects essentially die out due to lack of activity; in those sorts of cases, it might be best to incorporate them into a broader project (i.e. Terrorism -> Milhist, Spirits -> Food and drink) to keep them alive. I believe that organizing special events - such as the Guild's copyediting drives or Milhist's contests - is a great way to raise awareness of these groups. Thus, events should get greater prominence and exposure. If functionalist theory holds up, more projects will draw more editors into collaborations, and foster greater cooperation, camaraderie, and so on. Moreover, we should do more to encourage new editors to join collaborations, in order to help them get involved in subjects of interest and learn from seasoned veterans. It would be helpful to expand the usage of Wikiproject welcome templates and to update the Twinkle module with more Wikiproject options.

Discussion

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

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

Support

1. Support - no concerns. (I voted 'oppose' last time) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
2. Support When I first started editing, I thought GAB was already an admin. GAB has done great work, particularly in anti-vandalism areas and SPI and I think that giving them the mop would be the next logical step (and a well deserved one at that!) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
3. Support I'm strongly of the opinion that we should look to promote (though, it's no promotion) editors who show a commitment to the project, enough clue to get them started with adminship, and the common sense to know when not to click a button. GAB shows all of this and more. Wikipedia isn't all tea parties and cake, and I feel that GAB has the ability to deal with heated situations with a level head -- There'sNoTime ^{( to explain)} 15:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
4. Support per my standard criteria: they have the correct temperament (i.e. not a jerk) and they have a clue. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
5. Support - I've been waiting for this one for a while. GAB impresses me as a thoughtful and well-rounded contributor. I have no reservations about them helping with the mopping.- Mr X 15:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
6. ( edit conflict × 2) Support: Have minor interactions with him, otherwise no issues overall. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
7. Enthusiastic Support - Been around GAB on and off for a few years now. They've got good content creation, a great attitude, experience in the lot of tedious maintenance areas like AfD, AfC, NPP, and SPI. We need more folks on all these tasks, and especially at SPI, the bit is pretty important if you want to be effective. GAB's a fine editor and they'll make a fine admin. TimothyJosephWood 15:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
8. Support. Anything else I'd say would be a generalization, so I won't comment further. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 15:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
9. Support Let's do this. GAB is a GREAT asset at SPI alone. Excellent attitude, and the knowledge to use the tools properly. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 15:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose for taking too damn long. This is the easiest support I've ever given. GAB is one of the most active clerks at SPI and can do great work there alone. They've repeatedly demonstrated their competence, clue, and readiness for the bit. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 15:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

    Now I'm getting the humor. :) I hope others forgive me for the other incident, right? -- George Ho ( talk) 16:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

    Wrong!! otherwise this gift will be for you. :D KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

    /me slaps BU Rob13 around a bit with a neon tetra. — Paleo Neonate - 18:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply

    WTF PaleoNeonate??!! *then, she gets in the car driving at random roads in Chattanooga especially those freeways just like this.* KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply

11. ( edit conflict) Support I have seen GAB around the project, especially SPI, and I see nothing but great things from them. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
12. Support. Here's what I said last time - "I understand the opposes on the grounds of relatively short tenure and I think it's a perfectly valid reason to oppose. But I don't see quantity of work as an end in itself as much as a factor that increases the likelihood that a candidate's understanding and quality of work are up to scratch. And in GAB's case, I've seen so much top quality work that I don't need the added security of massive amounts of it. I think Bbb23 sums it up best by pointing out the careful consideration and thought that goes into everything GAB does". I see no reason to change any of that, except for the bit about relatively short tenure. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
13. Support, agree with Timothyjosephwood and Boing! said Zebedee that the candidate already benefits the community and would benefit the community even more with the admin tools. Sagecandor ( talk) 15:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
14. Too many edits for my taste (should have been made an admin last year). — Kusma ( t· c) 15:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
15. Support. I am not unfamiliar with this user, and see nothing to be concerned about. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
16. Support - GAB will definitely be able to make good use of the extra tools. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 15:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

    To expand on this: GAB has been extremely helpful at SPI, even without the ability to block or view deleted material. I'm looking forward to having another experienced, clueful SPI admin clerk. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 22:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

17. Support Has plenty of clue and use for the tools. Widr ( talk) 16:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
18. Support Based on my own work at SPI, all I can say is: it's about time. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
19. Support I've heard the name around and have seen good contributions; no concerns from me. eurodyne ( talk) 16:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
20. Strong support. I almost never express opinions in RfA's, but felt the need to weigh in here. I assumed GAB already had adminship. One of my focuses these days is to help out with requests for unblock. There's a fair amount of overlap with sockpuppet investigations, and GAB's active there. Every interaction I have with GAB is positive. GAB is smart, capable, and kind and could be more effective with the admin tools. I try to improve my interactions with other users based on the examples set by GAB. GAB, one warning I'll give you is that you are likely to be targeted more often by prolific sockpuppeteers and long-term vandals, once you get adminship. This can sometimes lead to some trying experiences. I have no doubt you are capable of handling these, just wanted to warn you. -- Yamla ( talk) 16:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
21. Support Would have happily nominated myself if this summer hadn't gone all to hell on me. He's a great SPI clerk and he'll be a great admin. :-) Katie ^talk 16:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
22. Support. If I'd !voted in your RFA last year, I think I would have voted support also, so here is a belated support for your second RFA. epicgenius ( talk) 16:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
23. Support as my default position – Incredibly helpful SPI clerk whose overall experience is appropriate for adminship. Mz7 ( talk) 16:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
24. Absolutely support – I've seen only good works from this one. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
25. Support Having seen GAB in action, I feel we can be assured he is clueful about the project's processes and respectful of the rules and of other editors. Equally importantly, after looking into some of their SPI work, I'm also convinced they know when and where to stop being overly-respectful of those editors that would exploit AGF to our detriment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
26. Support I see no reason not to. SmartSE ( talk) 17:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
27. Support I seem to recall a bad run-in with GAB recently that left me upset. But, I think the more folks on the admin corp, the less "big deal" it'll be.--v/r - T P 17:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
28. Support. Ready for the mop. Binksternet ( talk) 17:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
29. Support. Absolutely enough experience. Malinaccier ( talk) 17:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
30. Support with no worries and it will help him at SPI where he has already been doing a good job.
     —  Berean Hunter (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
31. Support unequivocally. GAB is a well-rounded and very competent editor. Adding the admin bit to his editing tool box will allow him to contribute even more and will certainly benefit WP:SPI where he has proven to be a great asset.-- Jezebel's Ponyo ^{bons mots} 17:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
32. Support. I've been waiting for this. I see GAB everywhere, doing everything, with competence and judgment. They check all my boxes. Steady activity for more than two years. Clean block log. Extremely useful work at SPI, which alone should be enough to hand them a mop, but they are deserving in all areas. CSD and PROD logs and AfD record show good understanding of deletion criteria. Experience at AIV, UAA, and RFPP. Reactions with others are courteous. The encyclopedia will clearly benefit from giving them the tools. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
33. Support I supported their first RFA and I would do so again. Especially since they'll be working more closely in SPI. Mkdw ^talk 18:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
34. Enthusiastic support - I can't add much to what's been said above. As a former non-admin SPI clerk myself, I can vouch that non-admins are at a disadvantage when dealing with long-term multiple-account vandals just by virtue of not being able to view deleted contributions (most repeat sockpuppet offenders leave a trail of deleted articles), along with other tasks reserved for clerks which require admin tools. GAB's work at SPI has been exemplary even without the tools and indeed they've been one of the most consistently active clerks. I'm excited to see what they can do with the mop. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 18:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
35. Support - Tools would help this editor a lot. Also, this editor seems to be careful in trying not to bite new editors. Overall, they are ready. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 18:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
36. Support No concerns and a strong need for tools. -- ferret ( talk) 18:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
37. Support on basis of SPI work alone. Mop the socks away. Snuge purveyor ( talk) 18:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
38. Support, with particular excitement that we'll have another admin clerk at SPI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
39. Support - good candidate. -- Ajraddatz ( talk) 19:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
40. Support: shows a clear need for the tools for SPI work. — MRD 20 14 19:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
41. Support as nominator. I was a little apprehensive when GAB transcluded earlier today, and thought "hmmm, am I absolutely sure he's ready?" Then I saw editors tripping up over each other with edit conflicts to support, and several longstanding admins I respect nail their colours to the mast. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
42. Support, based on review and interacting with the editor; he made a mistake or two in the past, but who has not, including myself. I believe he is ready for the task ahead. Kierzek ( talk) 19:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
43. Support, likely net positive with tools. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
44. Support, I thought you were an admin, I see you at SPI a lot. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
45. Support, AfD stats look good, no red flags, WP:TTWOA. DrStrauss talk 20:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
46. Support, after consideration and my mistake from the oppose section, I moved to support. I believe GAB would be an amazing admin. They have my full support. PS: Apologies for the oppose. I still wasn't wide awake and I swear I read February 2016. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
47. Support GAB has considerable experience here and there's nothing I could find radically out of place in any of their past contributions. Would make a good and careful admin. Lourdes 20:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
48. Support Why not? - FASTILY 20:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
49. Support per MelanieN. -- Joshualouie711 ^talk 20:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
50. Support - I know the saying gets old & boring but having seen them around especially this year I thought they were already an admin, Anyway supported last year and am happy to support this year, Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :). – Davey2010 ^Talk 20:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
51. Support Clear need for the tools and no concerns.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 20:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
52. Support Per nom, making the editor an admin will be net positive to the community. Shellwood ( talk) 20:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
53. Support Per nom, and There'sNoTime. No concerns. Will be a net positive. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 21:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
54. Support The candidate has clue, the right temperament and a clear need for the tools. Mduvekot ( talk) 21:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
55. Support. Great user who will be able to do great things with the tools. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 21:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
56. Support: The issues I raised in the original RfA were principally experience-related. Candidate appears to have more of the right kinds now, and I don't see any evidence of serious issues. The answers to the questions above seem good to me, and so does what I see of the candidate's track record (e.g. over 90% agreed-with-consensus rate at AfD).  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
57. Support. Clueful and even-tempered. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
58. Support ^{Baby miss fortune} 23:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
59. Support. Why not? Double sharp ( talk) 23:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
60. Suport Sensible and helpful. Acroterion (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
61. Suport Great contributions and I like all of their answers to the questions given so far. WikiVirusC ( talk) 00:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
62. Support, why not? Mike Peel ( talk) 00:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
63. Support. Strong SPI experience with FA and GAs is like an RfA unicorn. Thanks for standing. (PS, re: UAA #3, see: N.W.A. But the inevitability of someone not knowing every piece of pop culture, random company, Wikipedia editor's name, etc. etc. in existence is one reason I think UAA questions tend to be of limited use in assessing admin candidates.) Innisfree987 ( talk) 00:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

    I agree. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

64. Support I do not know this editor, so in addition to my own process for voting, I am relying on opinions from editors I do know who have already voted. As a result of both, I feel comfortable supporting this editor. I could nitpick about a few small things, but it would not change my vote. Equineducklings ( talk) 00:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
65. Support because there's definitely a need for the tools, and no reason to suspect they would be abused. Sro23 ( talk) 00:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
66. Support Temperamentally well suited, and a clear need for the tools. I was a nominator last RFA. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 00:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
67. Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
68. Support Good qualifications. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
69. Support I've never participated in RfA before, but I've seen this user all around Wikipedia, and want to add my two cents. I previously saw that they've helped others, and made constructive edits in articles and talk pages. I looked through my User contributions, but couldn't find specifics... I trust that they will continue this way in the future, and should be given more tools to better this project. -- Hameltion ( speak, spoken) 02:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
70. Support: I opposed last time around. I was impressed that GAB reached out to me before this RfA to see if I felt he had addressed the issues that made me oppose last time; that sort of personal touch in addressing problems is what we really need among the admin corps, and I was impressed with GAB's professionalism in doing so. GAB has improved significantly since the first RfA, and I am happy to lend my support. In particular, I find GAB's "need" for the tools in clerking SPI to be compelling, as well as his documented improvement in CSD and other areas. Most of all, I applaud GAB for taking what the opposers said last time to heart and genuinely focusing on improving. I sincerely hope this passes. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 03:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
71. Support: I have seen GAB in both administrative areas and in substantive contributins. GAB has been a great contributor and now has much more good experience in technical areas. GAB also seems to have the temperament and demeanor to be a good administrator. I am also impressed by the support from several editors who opposed GAB's previous RfA. Donner60 ( talk) 04:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
72. Support and everything I said in the first round still applies. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
73. Support - I've found GAB's judgment to be pretty solid overall, and looking through some past contributions prior to opining here I found nothing to sway me from that opinion. However, since RfA is a wonderful time to pepper the hazee with subjective criticism and advice, I will note that it is helpful, though certainly not required, to include the section name in edit summaries on very long pages like ANI. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
74. Support no concerns. I've seen GAB in many areas and I'm confident in their ability to use the tools correctly and responsibly. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
75. Support no reason to oppose. Banedon ( talk) 06:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
76. Support ( edit conflict). I was neutral, leaning oppose, the last time around; but they have addressed any concerns I had then very effectively. Vanamonde ( talk) 06:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
77. Support - no concerns. Giant Snowman 06:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
78. Strong support - great rebound from the last RfA, great work at SPI, an obvious addition to the admin corps. Cabayi ( talk) 07:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
79. Support. No problems at all. Yintan  08:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
80. Support - I've seen his work at SPI and in a few other areas. Dan D. Ric ( talk) 08:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
81. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
82. Strong support And only an unavoidable and unpredicted period offwiki stopped me from co-nomming. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 09:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
83. Strong support per previous RFA. Best of luck. Patient Zero ^talk 10:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
84. Weak support. I don't really feel qualified to judge a candidate who wants to specialise in admin chores that I don't do regularly. However, there are no red flags and the candidate's answers to questions are good so far. Deryck C. 10:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
85. My main ineraction with GAB has been at SPI and I've found them to be efficient and helpful, so I'll gladly support. — Spaceman Spiff 11:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
86. Support - I'm generally very skeptical of editors newer than myself, but GAB seems competent, has an impressive track record, and is a definite net positive to the project. I see no red flags here, and the fact that many of his edits are nonautomated further shows he isn't trying to collect hats. No doubt I would have opposed at GAB's last RfA, but I'm fairly confident in supporting right now. 65 HC A7 12:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
87. Support: I havent directly interacted with the candidate much, if at all. But I have seen his work. He is active in many different fields, I have also seen him working in SPI. I also like the way he communicates with others. No concerns. But: I hope he doesn't love video games. An editor who loves video games cant be a good admin for some unknown reason. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
88. Strong Support - GAB is very active in SPI, and I respond frequently to his requests for administrative action there. His requests are usually spot-on, and I've maybe only once had an administrator request from him where I pointed out that the proof is insufficient - but that was long ago and I can't even find it. The biggest underlying reason for my strong support is the fact that he understands when he's confident and certain that action is needed and when he is not. At SPI, if he isn't 100% sure but asks for an administrator to take a look or give input anyways, he clearly indicates so and why. This is a crucial behavior that I look for in potential candidates - the ability to recognize one's own level of certainty and when to ask for input or assistance rather than "taking the gamble" and "seeing how the dice rolls". Giving him the tools will save other administrators the need to assist him at SPI, as well as give him the proper tools to fully investigate cases (i.e. view deleted pages and revisions between accounts) that he can't otherwise do without another admin. Best of luck to you; I'm always available should you need my help with anything. :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
89. Support - GAB looks like someone who will make a great admin, considering he's already doing a lot of adminlike things. Joining the Corps is the next logical step. WikiSquirrel42 ( talk) 13:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
90. Support: Generalizations are bad, generally speaking, but GAB is good and the Corps needs generals. Jonathunder ( talk) 13:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
91. Support. I trained GAB to become an SPI clerk. I have to say it was fairly easy as he was a natural. He's smart, honest, and a pleasure to deal with. I can only assume he applies those same qualities to other parts of the encyclopedia. Every time one of the non-admin clerks at SPI has become an administrator, it has been a net asset to SPI and the project. GAB will be another confirmation of that principle.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
92. Support - No concern, GAB have done an good plenty job at SPI clerk, as Oshwah have described. SA 13 Bro ( talk) 14:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
93. Support Jianhui67 ^{T★ C} 14:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
94. Support – A gold-plated, platinum-engraved candidate. — JFG ^talk 14:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
95. Support - I often witness GAB making helpful edits that were missed by previous editors. Greedo 8 14:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
96. Support Meets my minimal content requirements to support, and his responses to questions seem rather clueful.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
97. Support. A trustworthy editor who can put the tools to good use. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
98. Yes. I supported last time as, even though GAB had been here for just over a year at the time (the reason for the opposes), it was clear from his contributions that he was here to build the project, and was going about it in a very positive and collegiate manner. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
99. Support. GAB has demonstrated a sustained track record of trustworthiness, and wants to put in hard work on SPIs like OfficialPankajPatidar (where we collaborated; 498 confirmed socks!). He said he wants to "strip away another layer of bureaucracy ... to block socks, view deleted material (absolutely crucial to SPI), and merge cases properly". They want the bit, give them the bit. - Bri ( talk) 18:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
100. Support. Strong contributions to the project and would evidently be a net positive — 72 _talk 18:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
101. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
102. Support I see no reason to believe that the user would abuse the tools. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
103. 20 mule team Support GAB has shown his value in several areas of the 'pedia - especially in his work as an SPI clerk. MarnetteD| Talk 19:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
104. Support very good content creation and solid, valuable SPI work Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
105. Support. Just a note: I was the GA Reviewer on 1995 CIA disinformation controversy and GeneralizationsAreBad was a pleasure to work with during that review. Wholehearted support. Shearonink ( talk) 20:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
106. Support GAB is an excellent candidate and has my full support. David J Johnson ( talk) 21:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
107. Support I'll add to the pile I guess. Seems like a great candidate. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
108. Support, looked deep enough into my question -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC) - also precious battle for credible, respected information -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
109. Support I see nothing that worries me. Time for another mop. Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 23:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
110. Support I would prefer if the candidate's editcount showed more articlespace edits and less user talk page edits, but that's not a deal-breaker. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
111. Support No issues! A competent user who would be suitable for the tools! -- Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
112. Support More than qualified and per nom. -- Bigpoliticsfan ( talk) 23:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
113. Support, no issues. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC). reply
114. Support -- excellent candidate. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
115. Support -- very knowledgeable answers to questions. Catrìona ( talk) 01:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
116. Support - Seems like exactly the sort of editor we need as an admin. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 01:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
117. Pile on Support I've seen the candidate around and always in a positive way. Lots of good work at AIV. A cursory look at their record turned up nothing that would give me any pause in handing the tools to this candidate and I look forward to their joining the team. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
118. Support no major concerns. Congrats on 118-0! JTP ^{( talk • contribs)} 02:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
119. Support - I used to think the candidate is already an admin. No issues here. Pratyush ( talk) 02:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
120. Support - Sufficient experience on the project and good answers to questions. -- Danaman5 ( talk) 02:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
121. Support - have seen GAB about in Milhist land, has a clue at AfD, good answers to questions and content creation experience. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
122. Support - Congratulations, you're in pillar 1! Linguist ¹ 1 ¹ 03:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
123. Support no concerns. Stikkyy t/ c 05:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
124. Support - Welcome aboard. -- œ ^™ 05:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
125. Support - A well-qualified editor with the needed experience to gain the mop. Well done! FiendYT ★ 06:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
126. Support - suprised they're not an admin already Gbawden ( talk) 07:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
127. Support - I've seen GAB around quite a lot at SPI and I think he will do well with the tools. Class455 ( talk| stand clear of the doors!) 11:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
128. Support - 👌🏻He reads & analyzes before taking action, and based on his answers above exercises good judgment. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 14:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
129. Support - fully qualified candidate, but generalizations are bad. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 14:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
130. Strong Support - GAB is one of the best editor I've ever saw and his answers above states his intelligence. Wiki needs more admins like him.— IM3847 ( talk) 14:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
131. Support - Per noms and supporters, this candidate displays the judgement and disposition needed for adminship. Kirk Leonard ( talk) 15:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
132. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 18:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
133. Support - this user is contributing constructively and prolifically in admin-related areas, and will be able to contribute much more with the admin tools. - Richard Cavell ( talk) 18:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
134. Support - Ideal. Poltair ( talk) 19:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
135. Support -No concerns, looks like he would make a great admin. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
136. Strong support - Communicative, patient, strong volunteer. Having the tools will help him deal with socks and vandals with far greater ease, as well as help other editors. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
137. Support Supported last time, and happy to pile on now. Mini apolis 21:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
138. Support. As a generalization, we can always use more admins at SPI. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
139. Support yes please. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 22:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
140. Support immensely qualified and competent candidate who will do well with the tools. The fact that GAB sought advice from prior opposers shows that he values and respects their opinions in spite of their former opposition. Lepricavark ( talk) 23:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
141. Support I've had enough experience with GAB not to have any concerns. Meters ( talk) 00:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply
142. Support Don't see why not. Joefromrandb ( talk) 02:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply
143. Support Seen him around at SPI. Dedicated to the project. Jupitus Smart 07:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply
144. Support I can't recall encountering this user anywhere on the project, but their responses to the RfA inquiries are very encouraging, suggesting a thoughtful and balanced approach to the areas they intend to use the tools in and the kind of priorities I like to see in an admin. I did only light digging into their contributions, but there too, signs are encouraging. Two years is a bit soon to be trying for the bit, but on the balance of what I see here, I'm not concerned about misuse (or overzealous application) of privileges. Further, we need more mops on deck at SPI. And the name makes me laugh. Best of luck, GAB. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply
145. Support. Need more admins. ^{My name is}not^dave ( talk/ contribs) 08:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply
146. Support: I would hugely prefer if the candidate disclosed their history of IP editing before I asked them about it at Q15. Nonetheless at least the candidate is honest, and I find that the candidate needs and can be trusted with adminship. Esquivalience ( talk) 17:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply
147. Support — This is my first RFA vote, and the only candidate I noticed since I created my account (~4 months ago) which I remember seeing around before their RFA. I remember seeing GAB around SPI but also elsewhere. Although everyone can improve (see So Why's concerns), I think that considering the experience in admin areas displayed by GAB, with the communication skills and will to improve, it's a good candidate. — Paleo Neonate - 18:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply
148. Support Appears to be someone who will use the tools reliably. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 19:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply
149. Support Fully qualified. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply
150. Support I've appreciated their conscientious SPI work. I have no concerns. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply
151. Support — A "famous" editor I've seen at many places in Wikipedia. I thought he was already an admin when I first joined. - The Magnificentist 08:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
152. Support No alarm bells here. Ged UK  10:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
153. Support A good candidate; no issues here. — k6ka 🍁 ( Talk · Contributions) 10:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
154. Support — Pile on :P No qualms at all. - FlightTime ( open channel) 15:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
155. Support No concerns. Thank you for all your previous work and for accepting this responsibility. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 15:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
156. Support - GeneralizationsAreBad will make a fine admin, no concerns here. -- Dane ^talk 19:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
157. Support Looks like a great candidate. Happy to support. Cthomas3 ( talk) 20:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
158. Support Great user who will be able to do great things with the tools. I have no concerns at all. Rcsprinter¹²³ (vent) 22:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
159. Support Have seen good things, no problems have come up. Gap9551 ( talk) 23:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
160. Support I can find no reason to think that this editor will be anything but a positive addition to the Clan Admin.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 23:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
161. Support. Seems like a very good all-around candidate. I couldn't find any red flags, I liked the Insults on the user page, and I couldn't help noticing they use edit summaries almost as much as I do. Rivertorch ^FIRE _WATER 23:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
162. Suppprt Can use admin tools to block users with an SPI case opened. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 23:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
163. Support - Surprised they aren't already an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
164. Support. Good luck! Drmies ( talk) 02:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
165. Support: GeneralizationsAreBad is a name that repeatedly pops up and with every encounter, I find myself pleased with his conduct. He has a good head on his shoulders and every reason to become an administrator. Good luck in your new capacity! DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 09:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
166. Support No hesitation. A big help at SPI, highly competent, and boasting the right sort of temperament for an admin. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 12:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
167. Support. Yes. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 13:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
168. Support No problems. Great candidate! - Brojam ( talk) 15:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
169. Support. Seems like all the obvious candidates are getting nominated lately. This editor right here is one of them. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
170. Support without any reservations. Titoxd^{( ?!?)} 18:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
171. Support I see no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools -- rogerd ( talk) 18:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
172. Support - I opposed due to insufficient tenure last time. Now no concerns. Carrite ( talk) 20:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
173. Support, looks fine to me. -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
174. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC ( talk) 00:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
175. Support - There is little to no doubt that, based on editing history, demeanor, answers and noms/supports above that Wikipedia will be a better place with GAB as an admin. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 01:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
176. Support - sound judgment, no issues here. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 02:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
177. Welcome aboard. El_C 06:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
178. Support Denisarona ( talk) 06:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
179. Support - Good editor.  FITINDIA  08:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
180. f e minist 10:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
181. Support, espcially after the addendum to Q14: I have to like a candidate who goes back, rethinks, doesn't defend themselves, admits error, proposes a way forward/new action for the future. I don't remember if i expressed an opinion last time round, but if not, i was certainly not happy giving this candidate the bit; this time i'm very glad to see it; with two successful Requests this month, these are, indeed, happy days, Lindsay ^Hello 10:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
182. Support Extraordinary editor. Great number of edits, and everything in his arsenal. Sure yes! Adityavagarwal ( talk) 10:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
183. Support. Generalizations are bad, but I think it's safe to say that if someone has 182 supports and no opposes at RfA, then they must be doing something right.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 13:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
184. Support: Will make a great admin! - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
185. Support. Everything is in order with this editor. bd2412 T 16:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
186. Support. Probably due to their contributions in various areas of the project I had actually assumed GAB was an admin already, and an exemplary one at that. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
187. Support. Shows awareness. Glrx ( talk) 17:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
188. Support Hell yes, it's been waaaaay too long.... TJH2018 talk 17:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
189. Support - Experienced and well qualified. TheGeneralUser ( talk) 18:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
190. Support - Displayed remarkable collaboration and competence while slogging through the No Gun Ri massacre disputes; left me impressed. Gets my vote in this extremely close RfA. Xenophrenic ( talk) 21:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
191. Support I'd hate to be useless, but seeing everyone else support you, I believe your a good candidate for adminship. — JJ B^{e rs} 21:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
192. Support I'm a little late to the game, but throwing in my support anyway. Officially: can't find any rational reason to oppose.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
193. Support No concerns, this user will not abuse the mop -- RP459 ^Talk/ _{Contributions} 22:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
194. Support 193 people can't be wrong, right? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
195. Support: Always reliable; consistently helpful. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
196. Support Well, might as well get the feller to WP:RFX200 if we can. — fortuna velut luna 05:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
197. Support Well qualified, and the CSD issues are old enough and well addressed in Q14 followup. Appable ( talk | contributions) 06:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
198. Without hesitation. Was very impressed with Operation Infinite Reach and I'm very glad to see you here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
199. Support will be a fine admin. Gizza ^{( t)( c)} 08:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
200. Support I have seen a lot of GAB around SPI and elsewhere, and they strike me as a thoroughly competent and clueful user who will make good use of the mop. -- bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
201. Support Trusted user. No problems here. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 11:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
202. Support. I think GAB has the requisite skills and judgment to make good use of the administrative toolkit. /wiae  /tlk 14:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
203. Support Happy to support - "Mop please" Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 14:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
204. Oppose User has a username that makes the generalization, that all generalizations are bad, which is a bad generalization to make.— CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 15:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
205. Support No doubt at all. I have seen this editor around quite a lot, and I have formed an excellent impression. He or she will make a very good administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 15:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Oppose I think GAB would be an amazing admin, don't get me wrong. It's the short time they've spent on Wikipedia that worries me. Had they been here for two years, I'd be more inclined to support. However, at over a year, it's a no for me. I'm sorry GAB. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Callmemirela: FWIW, GAB has been here for more than two years. His first edit was in February 2015 and became active towards the end of April 2015. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 16:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Why did my brain process it as 2016 even though I saw 2015? Hmmm... that changes everything. I might move to neutral. I'll see when I get back home. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

The user analysis tool says that he's been around for 2.5 years. -- Joshualouie711 ^talk 17:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I made a mistake. See above. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

So you are opposing, yet you think he would make an amazing admin? Isn't the point of RfA to promote the people who would make amazing admins? Or am I incorrectly thinking that RfA is actually still what it says it is. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 18:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

If a user requested adminship after one year editing, I'd oppose because there is lack of experience regardless how many edits they've made, the articles they've created, the user rights they have, etc. They could well be a potentially amazing admin, but the lack of experience is one of my criteria. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Callmemirela: You define experience somewhat oddly. Experience relates to how much you've done for the project, not how long you've been here. A semi-active editor from 2006 to now with a couple edits a month is less experienced than an editor of three months who has done hundreds of edits each week. I encourage you to evaluate how good a job an admin would do, not arbitrary numbers. Even setting aside the appropriate measure of experience (edit count is bad too!), experience is only important insofar as it predicts how good a job a candidate will do as an admin. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 21:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I can see the confusion. I probably didn't explain myself well. My apologies. I don't see the point in doing so now. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Extremely reluctant Oppose-The candidate scores in all admin areas. But he seems to have only one live article to his credit.His autopatrolled bit seems to be there because he creates a lot of SPI cases pages not with regard to article creation.Thus it seems in the article creation particularly GAB fails to make the cut. FORCE RADICAL ( talk) 06:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply

GAB's creation of the Good Article 1995 CIA disinformation controversy, and the massive expansion of the Featured Article Operation Infinite Reach, are quite sufficient to attest to content creation skills : Noyster (talk), 09:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I would further add that Operation Infinite Reach is a controversial subject that covers a wide range of views, including a triumph over terrorism, an over-aggressive US foreign policy, Clinton only did it to stop people talking about Lewinsky, etc etc. To balance all that out is a tough job in itself, to get the FA approval on it is something else altogether. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Forceradical: Were you aware of the Featured Article when you opposed? While he didn't create the article itself, he did substantially expand it and see it to FA-quality. With this new information, do you have a different opinion? ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 22:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Article creation is an increasingly poor metric for assessing the writing skills many of us look for in administrator candidates. I began editing when we had around 500,000 articles, when a number of important article titles were red links (those that weren't were often very short stubs) and creating new pages was often like shooting fish in a barrel. There are almost 5 million more articles today than when I began editing, in many areas, there are few if any article titles that are missing, so creating new pages in some subjects areas is both impossible and frequently quite unnecessary. I can say, confidently, that what is beyond question (following my own review of GAB's contributions) is their broader ability to write new content for existing articles, to take poor quality articles, re-write them, expand them, add much more content, sources and data, and to bring them up to a very high standard (hence 'us' recording that GAB has one FA, six GA and four DYKs to his name). Nick ( talk) 09:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

It is not exactly content creation that I am worried about. I believe that to be able to judge articles up for Speedy deletion one must have experienced Speedy Deletion at least once .I tried looking at the CSD log but most of his deletions seems tied to SPI cases.(Not that such a CSD is inferior in any way but my impression is that there is less ambiguity with the criteria and cause of deletion in such cases).Anyway I withdraw my Oppose since on looking through his contributions brought to light by the editors above I feel I should not have opposed on such a tiny flaw. ⮘ FORCE RADICAL⮚ 10:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral. I came here fully expecting to pile on the amount of support !votes. However, after a short check of the candidate's speedy deletion taggings, taggings like [1] (A7 for a charity founded by multiple notable actors one minute after creation), [2] (A7 for a writer with multiple claims of significance one minute after creation), [3] (A7 for an article in construction after one minute, [4] (A7 for a company with a notable CEO; admin-only link since some admin deleted it erronously), [5] (another A7 two minutes after creation) leave me a bit unsettled, especially the speed of the taggings after creation. While my mind is put somewhat at ease by the self-reflection demonstrated in the candidate's answer to my question and the recent work in that area, those taggings are too fresh for me to feel comfortable supporting, so I'm staying neutral in this request. Regards So Why 20:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply

   I've just looked at those, and I agree with you they are a cause for concern. Has GeneralizationsAreBad responded to this concern? I'd like to see a response. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

   I went through all of these (and a few more) when I was looking to nominate GAB. As he said, he upped his game after the Arunkapadia sock case, so his CSDs since March have not done that. Out of 440 CSDs tagged in 2017, I counted potential issues with 9 (either declined or I questioned the deleting admin's choice); that makes a 2% error rate, which is compatible with my basic standard defined in User:Kudpung/RfA criteria #9 - "<5% declined CSD at New Page Patrolling." The three months of "clean" CSDs was inspired by Scottywong's oppose on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dennis Brown : "I would gladly support if he took as little as 3 months to show us that he understands A7 and G11." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

   Thanks for that Richie. Has GAB responded anywhere to this? Has anyone asked him? In the balance of things it's not enough to oppose, but it is something which I think deserves some form of response. I'll give him a ping so he is aware of this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

   I've responded under Q14 above. Thanks, GAB ^gab 23:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

2. Neutral I understand he's a terrific editor with a prolific record. I'm not a fan of the username. I personally find it too long and taking up a lot of bytes on every talk page he signs. If it was changed to GAB (Like your signature, which is possible) then that would be better. Obviously not a strong enough comment for me to oppose this RfA, but just something to keep in mind. Minima © ( talk) 14:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply

   I've... managed to avoid the temptation of following up on comments here so far, but honestly, his signature is 77 characters. Yours is 196. TimothyJosephWood 14:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply

   Did you know that DoRD's username used to be "Department of Redundancy Departments"? He was an admin with that username.— CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 14:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply

   FWIW, the length of GAB's signature pales in comparison to either Minimac's, TJW's, or C678's. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 14:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply

   And personally I find The Blade of the Northern Lights to be a pain to type, not to mention remembering which words are in caps and which aren't (I can never remember what WP:NCCAPS says) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply

   My signatures used to be even longer than that. I also have my holiday signatures, which usually push up to the 255 character limit.— CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 14:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply

   I am surprised to find people objecting to user names because they are difficult to type. Why would anyone ever type user names, even the easier ones, when copying and pasting takes just a couple of seconds? The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 15:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply

   Copying and pasting is a pain in the neck on an iPhone. Still, on the rare occasion I'm actually searching for a specific user talk page, autocorrect on the search box usually gets me most of the way, so it's not really a problem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply

General comments

• I have no problem with the answers to the UAA question (which I hope was a good alternative to the usual ones that are asked), I was thinking of the Youtuber Angry Grandpa. Personally, I think that the name is ambiguous enough to be allowed, and if the editor was editing their namesake article, then a COI tag could be dropped without issue. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• I obviously have no issue with you becoming an admin (maybe not obviously, but I don't lol). But, I would say that having 'nigga' in a username would be grounds for an immediate block, with an explanation to have them change their username. It is a racial slur/offensive/disruptive/etc. Also the name of a band- copyvio? Ok probably not lol. Angry Grandpa I would also have an issue with, because it is the same name as a public figure. I can't blame you for not knowing that, but upon realization I would say it would be safe to ask them to change their name or otherwise at least make it Angry Grandpa 1. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Names of bands are not copyrightable. They are facts. They can be subject to trademark, but trademark only protects against commercial activity. So paid editors could not have trademarked names in their username (potentially), but other editors certainly can. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 13:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• I didn't know the copyright law behind it, but I was joking about that part :) And like I said, I have no issue with them becoming an admin. Sorry for any confusion. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

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.