Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Muboshgu: Difference between revisions

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (103/1/1); Scheduled to end 18:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Muboshgu (talk · contribs) – Okay. I have put this off for a long time. At first I just wanted to focus on content, not worry about process so much. Last night for me was the last straw. A vandal added a BLP violation to an article and I had to go to AN/I to put in a request for RevDel and it took over an hour for someone to do it. If I had been an admin, I could've just done it myself. I've had people bugging me to become an admin many times. Just a cursory look through my talk page archive shows people urging me to run dating back to 2012 (User:Secret, User:Go Phightins!, User:Wizardman, User:AutomaticStrikeout, who is now User:Lepricavark, User:Jenks24, and User:MelanieN). I appreciate their prodding, and it only took 5+ years, but I'm now ready to go through with this. I understand that with great power comes great responsibility. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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: Well, as I said above, the final straw leading me to this was a RevDel situation, so I'll participate there for serious BLP violations. I strive to fight vandalism, so I'll take part in WP:AIV and WP:RPP, where I'm currently involved in making requests. I am a regular at WP:ITN/C and WP:DYK, so I'll promote in appropriate cases where I am WP:UNINVOLVED. And maybe I'll also participate in closing at WP:AFD, but not right away.

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

A: Hands down Derek Jeter. Highly visible article, I got it passed as a featured article. I should probably go back to it now that he's back in the game as an owner. I have a lot of other promoted content, like GAs, DYKs, FLs, one FP, and ITN articles. They're all documented on my user page.

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: Sure. I don't think I've always dealt with it well. I have edit warred a bit in the past, I know I've been warned about violating 3RR before. As an admin, I have to make sure my actions are held to a higher standard so I will be mindful not to do that. Of course, as an admin, I'll have the ability to protect pages to encourage (or force) debate on contentious topics. I'm open to any advice, suggestions, or mentorship from admins on how to best use the power that comes with the privilege and not get into problematic behavior. Presently, I do encourage editors to use talk pages to discuss disputes, and if I do get stressed, I do take a break from the wiki for however long it takes me to calm down.

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 Alex Shih

4. Thank you for running. Would you express your stance on WP:BLPREMOVE, and how would you apply the policy? Alex Shih (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: BLPREMOVE is right on. The incident (Redacted) (thank you for the RevDel there) was one of the worst examples of a gross BLP violation I have seen, hence it being the impetus for my putting forth this RFA. Material that is of a libelous nature clearly needs to be removed immediately, with RevDel a primary method of doing so. There are lesser forms of these kinds of violations, which don't require RevDel. Sticking with Ellsbury, that can include rumors of a sports player being traded from one team to another. Since these transactions are often reported via anonymous sources across Twitter before they're confirmed, lots of people come to Wikipedia trying to "break the news". However, these transactions can be false reports. (This is my favorite Tweet of the week.) Wikipedia is not a breaking news source, so care should be taken to include reliable sources confirming the news story is real before making updates. User:Bagumba developed {{uw-sportstrans}} as a user warning for people who make these edits. On that template's talk page, I've compiled some reported sports transactions that fell through to try to illustrate the point that as a wise man once said, "it ain't over till it's over". Edits to a BLP of a contentious nature require sourcing to back them up. It's true of sports players who may be traded, it's true of politicians accused of sexual harassment, and it's true of all other BLPs and their specific situations. In the case of a gross BLP violation like the one that was RevDel'd, an immediate block is of use. Otherwise, talk page discussion with users to explain why unconfirmed rumors shouldn't be in articles is the way to go, with the hope that it can prevent edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Alex Shih

5. Since you have expressed willingness to work at WP:ITN/C and WP:DYK, would you provide some examples of engaging in quality control at these areas? Alex Shih (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: Specific examples may require some digging through archives, which I can do if you'd like, but that will take some time. I can say generally that I am aware of what is required of an article posted to the front page. Namely, that it be well sourced, free of bias or POV issues, free of copyright issues, and as fleshed out as possible. This is an ongoing issue with ITN and DYK candidates and I've opposed more nominations than I can count on those or similar grounds. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I am satisfied with both answers. Thank you for taking the time to answer then! Alex Shih (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from BU Rob13

6. As a follow-up to question #3, can you provide a particular example in which you were involved in a conflict? I would be especially interested in hearing about a time someone questioned your motives or otherwise made things "personal", as admins have to deal with that regularly.

A: I've been accused of left-wing bias here. It's true that I'm left-wing, I joined WP:OBAMA back when it became a thing, and so there's no secret, I guess. But I watch myself to make sure I'm not letting that color my editing. I have frequently edited articles of major political figures in the U.S., both Democratic and Republican, and I always do so with BLP and NPOV at the forefront of my mind. I think Al Franken is a good recent example where a left-wing figure experienced scandal, we as editors preached patience in terms of putting that content in the lead (while of course adding it to the body in a reliably sourced and NPOV manner). Some people argued WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, with the lead of Roy Moore as their counter-example. We of course tried to explain the differences in the two situations, and that one article being one way doesn't mean that another article should be the same exact way. Of course Franken's allegations belong in the lead now that he's resigning as a result of them, but when we didn't know if he'd weather the storm or not, it was too soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: As a follow-up, would you consider yourself WP:INVOLVED with respect to American politics? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not automatically. Sure, if I've made significant edits, or weighed in in some way in a talk page discussion, then I'm involved. If it's a particular issue that I haven't been active in, then I should be able to weigh in impartially. I'm open about my personal political biases in an attempt to be above board. I believe my edits to biographies of prominent American politicians and related pages are neutrally done, whether I personally like or dislike the individual. If anyone ever has a specific concern, I'm willing to consider whether or not I let personal biases intercede. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Andrew D.

7. You don't provide any details of the revdel incident. The article in question was (Redacted), right? I see that there are some fresh rumours about (Redacted). WP:REVDEL explains that "RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility." Was it really needed in this case? Andrew D. (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: Q's 4-6 will take a little longer for me to answer and I only have a couple minutes free right now, but I will answer this question. Yes, the article in question was (Redacted). Yes, there are trade rumors about (Redacted). I will not repeat the content of the edit that got the RevDel (I can maybe expand on that a little as relevant in Q 4) but it was grossly degrading and insulting content that was not at all about (Redacted), but about demeaning the subject with some of the most offensive content possible. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity. The removed content was a "XXX is gay" type of vandal edit; while that in itself is not grossly offensive, it did contain an accusation of abuse by a fictitious relative, which could be problematic, so was rightly deleted. SilkTork (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was even worse than that, given the details. It may have been the grossest thing I've seen on Wikipedia in my decade here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've checked the rev-deleted BLP vandalism, and it was a good deal worse than "XXX is gay". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Beyond My Ken

8. As an administrator, would there be any circumstances in which you would consider being compensated for using your administrative powers, or indeed doing any paid editing at all? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: Absolutely not. My personal ethics are of paramount importance to me. My real life job requires following strict ethical standards, and I take that approach to everything else in my life. An admin has the responsibility to be above board on everything, and being compromised by paid editing, especially if undisclosed, jeopardizes the whole project. I'm not here to be paid. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Beyond My Ken

9. Why did you choose to self-nominate? Did you attempt to find a nominator?

A: I've had a number of people offer to nominate me in the past, and I was actually about to ask User:MelanieN to do it this morning, as she's the most recent editor to offer. I went to her talk page and saw she's on vacation, and decided not to wait until she gets back. Carpe diem, I suppose.

Thanks for taking the time to answer both questions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to ask them. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from TheDragonFire

10. Have you ever edited using an alternative account? If so please either disclose them to the community, or if privacy is needed, email the Arbitration Committee for assistance.

A: No, never. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Zubin12

11. Do you have any plans on simplyfing or making it easier for new editors to understand how to contribute and how various polices work ?Zubin12 (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: I do not have specific plans, but I am happy to discuss the matter with other admins to try to figure out ways that we could help new editors. We need new editors to become engaged in Wikipedia, and preferably more female editors, and those who come from diverse backgrounds. I do my best, when engaging with a new editor, to share with them policies and tips in non-bitey ways. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Andrew D.

12. What is the origin or meaning of your account name, Muboshgu, please?

I'm not seeing the point of Andrew posting this question 40 minutes after opposing the candidate. Is this really going to sway your opinion?—Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba:-Probably.See this !vote.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 13:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: I don't see how that's relevant. It's something from my high school years, and I used it even though I registered this account long after graduating. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Vanamonde93

13. Thank you for offering to take up the mop. What are your views on WP:GEOBIAS? Is the concept relevant for editors at ITN/C, and if so, how? What about for admin work at ITN/C? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: It absolutely is relevant for editors and admins. ITN/C certainly has a U.S./U.K. bias. We've recently had nominations on the U.S. side of the tax bill that got passed, Doug Jones' defeat of Roy Moore, and others. It is a form of bias present among us American and British editors and it's important to keep in mind that similar stories from non-English countries would not engender support, so we should be trying to treat these cases equally. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Feminist

14. Would you say that the average Wikipedia editor or Wikipedia in general is left-of-center? If so, how should such bias be accounted for? If not, why do you think Wikipedia has been accused of having a left-wing bias far often than it has been accused of having a right-wing bias?

A: I do think, based on comments made and experience, that more editors are left-of-center than right-of-center. I've seen right wing editors become quickly discouraged here, and they leave. I think there are examples of bias here and there, but don't believe this means Wikipedia is biased as a whole. It does mean that we need to mind policies that can keep that bias in check, like WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. We also need to collaborate via talk page discussion with editors whose personal POV differs from our own to showcase how left and right can work together. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Galobtter

15. You said that Of course, as an admin, I'll have the ability to protect pages to encourage (or force) debate on contentious topics. When would you say it is appropriate to fully protect a page versus warning or blocking the editors who are edit-warring? Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: It's a great thing that Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, but there are cases where restrictions are needed. Full protection should be only a last resort. The first step is discussion or warnings as appropriate. Maybe an editor needs to be blocked without the page being protected at all. Semiprotection and pending changes are great tools for ongoing cases where we expect new users would come to vandalize, but confirmed accounts can be trusted to edit constructively. In the cases of persistent edit warring or major content disputes where many confirmed accounts are involved, then a short full protection can be beneficial so that whatever the issue is, or issues are, they can be hashed out in talk page discussion rather than contentious editing patterns that disrupt the project. It should only be brief. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer! Thanks for answering. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from 47.16.203.5

16. Suppose you are the driver of a trolley. The trolley rounds a bend, and there comes into view ahead five track workmen, who have been repairing the track. The track goes through a bit of a valley at that point, and the sides are steep, so you must stop the trolley if you are to avoid running the five men down. You step on the brakes,but alas they don't work. Now you suddenly see a spur of track leading off to the right. You can turn the trolley onto it,and thus save the five men on the straight track ahead. Unfortunately, Mrs. Foot has arranged that there is one track workman on that spur of track.He can no more get off the track in time than the five can, so you will kill him if you turn the trolley onto him. Is it morally permissible for you to turn the trolley? What would you do?

A:

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

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

1. Support. Outstanding content contributions and a high proportion of edits to article space. Kablammo (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support: Impressive content creator, and there is a strong need for more admins at WP:ITN/C and WP:DYK. For someone with 200k+ of edits in the past 9 years and heavily involved in American politics articles, I have no concerns with the temperament of Muboshgu. Alex Shih (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support A good content creator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - always treats other editors with respect, is very well suited to the role of admin, and as Alex Shih alluded to, more admins are necessary to streamline processes on MP space, especially over at WP:ITN/C. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. Looks like a good editor. Certainly has the know-how and friendly attitude required to be a good administrator. Malinaccier (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Outstanding contributions. Bradv 19:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Good content work. Net positive. ceranthor 19:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
8. Why he wants to be an admin I haven't the slightest, but he'd make a great one. Wizardman 19:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Lets just say I see a forecast of WP:SNOW for this approval. Excellent editor, has the resume to back up his nomination, and level headed. Easily a no-brainer. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support As we both edit in sports areas, I've encountered Muboshgu over the years and have found him to be dedicated to building a better Wikipedia. He tends to be a bit more deletionist that I am (75.8% of AfD votes are to delete/merge/redirect), but even where we've disagreed, I've found him to be thoughtful, open-minded, and considerate of others' viewpoints. I have every reason to believe he will make an excellent admin. Cbl62 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support More admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support sensible, friendly editor, has the experience and "clue". --NSH001 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support I always look forward to Muboshgu's insights on baseball-related entries. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Well it's about time. No reason not to. Sro23 (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Candidate has the right idea about this and communicates it clearly. – Athaenara ✉ 20:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Every encounter I've had with this editor has been a good one, and I think they'll make a great admin. Canadian Paul 20:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. Only positive interactions to report. bd2412 T 20:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support, seems to have clue. Useful comments at AfDs. Better edit summaries would be nice, though. —Kusma (t·c) 21:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Muboshgu has been on my "persons of interest" list for at least six months, I just didn't think he wanted to run for RfA. Happy to be proved wrong about that - I've done my research and he ticks all my boxes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support for his impressive content creation. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - looks like an excellent candidate, with a clear use for the sysop tools and the temperament to use them well. The answer to question #3 is particularly telling in this regard. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Probably saner than I am. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support – I'm interested in his response to Rob's question, but this is clearly a qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Never heard of him, but a heck load of treasure is listed on his userpage. Net positive! !dave 22:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Excellent candidate and highly qualified. Tons of clue with a very positive disposition and no issues. I have had the pleasure of working with this editor at various times, mostly at ITNC and have always found them to be one of our better contributors. Even on the rare occasions when we have disagreed, I have always found them to be very reasonable. Break out the cigars, I think we have a winner here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support: No issues overall, and great content work. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
29. Strong support: It's about time. (As per prior comments on the subject) Go Phightins! 22:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support, found precious long ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - Absolutely. Yintan  23:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - Looks suitable for the job. Quickfingers (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - Excellent editor. Thank you for taking the plunge, Muboshgu. I only hope it never interferes with your great content work. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - Prolific content creator and contributor to DYK. Excellent candidate. -Zanhe (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Long Term user and regularly editing since Dec 2008 with over 200K edits and over 1800 articles, excellent candidate well versed in policy and excellent content creation.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - very qualified, no concerns; I'm confident he'd make a great admin. Clear net positive who should have become an admin long ago. 65HCA7 23:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Has always struck me as smart and uninterested in drama, more interested in improving the encyclopedia. Good content editor and contributor who has no patience with b.s. Good at collaboration and knows policy. Will be a good admin. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support with no qualms and just a little bit too qualified. :) This might be the most successful self-nomination ever here! J947 ^{(c · m)} 00:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - What I've seen of this editor in action at WP:ITN/C makes me very pleased to vote in support.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support: Good content creation, long-term editor and wants to fight vandals. Perfectly qualified candidate as far as I can see. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. I particularly like the answer to #3 - editor is clearly aware of, owns up to, and has learned from past mistakes. It's a hard thing to do and I respect it when I see it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - Normally, for me, a self-nom would be a serious strike against a candidate, but their explanation, and their list of people who urged them to run, is more than satisfactory to me. The candidate's editing stats are very good, and their stance against paid editing aligns with my views. It would be improbable if I hadn't had interactions in the past with the nominee, but I can't recall any at the moment, so I cannot speak to his temperament at first hand, but enough people who I respect have done so above that I don't foresee any problems along those lines. In short, Muboshgu seems to be a very good candidate to be an administrator, and I am happy to provide another (probably unneeded) support vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - this one is a no-brainer for all the reasons mentioned above...and a Yankees fan nonetheless!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. I especially like his content creation - awesome stuff. Answer to Question #4 was really spot on, I definitely empathize with the RevDel stuff, even RPP takes a long time and the more admins who are interested in helping with those processes the merrier. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - I trust Tony and Melanie's judgement to a high degree. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - So you're not one already, eh? Time to fix that. :) Kurtis ^(talk) 02:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - Have seen Muboshgu around over the years, and approve of this Rfa request whole-heartedly. Jusdafax (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support: I don't see any issues with this excellent candidate for adminship. —MRD2014 ^{Merry Christmas!} 03:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Technically competent, established content creator, doesn't seem like a dick. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support per above. Jonathunder (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support I see nothing that would sway my opinion to oppose this RfA. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 03:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support No negatives I can see, and plenty of positives in providing the candidate with access to admin tools. -- Begoon 03:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Muboshgu is only one of the most talented content creators this site has ever seen. His broad range of experience underscores his immense qualifications for the task. I'm delighted that he has finally thrown his hat in the ring. Lepricavark (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support - Yes please. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support - seen them around and I have no qualms. - Sitush (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support -- would be a value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. Why not? Double sharp (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support An amazing contributor! Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support No-brainer. --Joshualouie711^talk 04:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Well qualified and ready. I feel good about supporting this self nomination, and if a BLP violation motivated Muboshgu to step forward, then that is making the best of a bad situation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Good content creation, wants to work in needed areas, seems sensible. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support I find the editor's temperament absolutely fit for the role. Honest, straightforward and transparent. Not just a net positive, I would say gross positive. Lourdes 06:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Absolutely! Looks like the belated Christmas present from the Wikipedia community is about to open. Minima© (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support – Solid candidate. A master of language, always professional and polite. — JFG ^talk 07:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support no concerns --Alaa :)..! 08:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support – filelakeshoe (t / c)  10:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support - fully qualified candidate. The opposes votes are unconvincing and are only there (as usual) to ensure that no RfA remains drama free, and no other purpose. Bonjour season of good will... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Would most definitely be a fine administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingobro (talk • contribs) 11:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support. So please let me pile on here. The user is an outstanding editor, really experienced and trustworthy. I am 100% positive that they would be an excellent admin. --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Piling in. Had a look through, seems good. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Competent editor who I've always found to be responsive and accountable. No reason to believe he wouldn't be fair with Boston Red Sox pages.—Bagumba (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support After looking over a couple of your contributions, I found no issue. You seem to reply to your messages on your talk page in a calm and friendly manner. KDTW Flyer (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support I have always found him sensible and reliable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support No concerns, net positive. -- ferret (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support, why not? Mike Peel (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support - candidate's attitude is good and their contributions are even better. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support - Pile on, honestly not familiar with this user, but a large amount of users I respect have posted "all in" support which is good enough for me. @Muboshgu: grab a mop and good luck ! - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support. Muboshgu is not an editor I was well acquainted with before this RFA, but after an examination of their record I see nothing concerning and plenty of positives. I would have liked a more detailed answer above, but fundamentally, that response was fine too. Vanamonde (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. Eight years of solid editing, polite, and has the insight to say he may have made errors in the past but realizes he will be held to a higher standard. I'm impressed. Ifnord (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support: Excellent content work, which is more important in an admin than many realize. A "Judge Dredd" attitude of "shut down dispute, hard, at all costs" is inimical to preserving our editorial pool – we need admins who deeply understand the concerns of the editors who are actually building the encyclopedia, not those who spend most of their time judging people at dramaboards. I'm honestly just as impressed by candidates who do a tremendous amount of WP:GNOME work, but GAs and FAs indicate the same commitment to encyclopedic quality. I find the answers to the questions so far satisfying enough, and don't see any temperament or judgement problems. I'm not perturbed in any way by WP:Articles for deletion/Abdication of Emperor Akihito; it's no wiki-crime to lean in a meta:Mergism direction, especially for something that verges on a WP:CRYSTAL violation. If that AfD were still open, I would !vote merge or delete on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support The answer to Q8 particularly impressed me. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support - Outstanding candidate with great content creation and a track record of problem-solving. Absolutely should be given a mop. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support - Always nice to see a nominee with such impressive content creation record. Rentier (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support - based on review and I also am glad to see the content creation record. Kierzek (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support - I personally believe that content creation builds a lot of instincts admins need. I like the motivation here for wanting to become an admin. Not worrying about the rest. — Maile (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support - I have no issues with this Muboshgu. If given the mop, I am sure that they will do good things with it. Questions have been answered adequately. Thank you for your service & offering to become an admin!--TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support - With that many contributions and not having heard a single negative thing about you, I find this to be one of the easier RfA decisions I've made. Nihlus 19:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support - A great candidate with many redeeming qualities. I have no reason to suspect that they will abuse the tools, and many reasons to think that they will use them productively. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
96. Stephen 20:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support As someone who has written a few GAs on baseball players, I can only marvel at Muboshgu's extensive list of contributions. Since he is someone so dedicated to creating and preserving high-quality content, I have no reservations giving him the tools.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support. Exactly the kind of candidate that "no big deal" was aimed at, and I have no concerns at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support- Great content contributions. FITINDIA 22:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support Good to have another admin running revdel and counter vandal ops.L3X1 (distænt write) 22:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support Seems reasonable scope_creep (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support – Solid content contributor who has always had their head on straight from what I've seen. I believe Muboshgu will do solid work with the tools. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support - I see no problems with this candidate. Time for another mop. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose The candidate indicates that he wants access to the deletion function so that he can use it immediately without discussion. But, for example, consider a recent deletion discussion initiated by the candidate – Abdication of Emperor Akihito – in which the candidate suggests that the matter is not notable. This is a gross error and hardly anyone agrees with him. I do not trust his judgement. Andrew D. (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment - Not wanting to labour the point, but that article would not qualify for speedy deletion in any case. There are mechanisms for dealing with administrator errors. Deb (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Andrew, I think you are misinterpreting his statement. It would be odd to expect admins to initiate deletion discussions mandatorily every time they see BLP material that needs to be rev-del'd. That'd defeat the purpose of having admins in the first place. And the deletion discussion issue you have, nominating an article for Afd is evidence of reaching out for consensus, which is what makes me trust the candidate more. (As Deb says above, sorry for belaboring the point, but your oppose !vote is unclear). Thanks, Lourdes 09:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   If you violate the BLP policy which requires your edits to be deleted, don’t disupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point at somebody’s RfA by lying. It stops people wanting to volunteer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I think we're all allowed to be wrong, or have opinions in a moment that doesn't meet consensus. I erred in that particular case. My interest in getting involved in AfDs is not as high as other matters. I'd probably only close AfDs that are clear with unanimous or near-unanimous opinions. I'd steer away from more contentious discussions, leaving those to more experienced admins. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   @Mobushgu: Don't let Andrew D.'s vote push you into restricting yourself in any unnecessary way. It's his judgement which is untrustworthy -- as he's proved over and over again on RfAs -- not yours. He works overtime to find the "fault" which will allow him to vote "oppose", which is his natural inclination. (By a margin of 3:1 [1]) I believe that our 'crats know this and pay very little attention to his opinions. It's probably time for the community to consider a topic ban from RfAs for him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   @Muboshgu: (correcting ping). Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   @Beyond My Ken: Thanks for your comment. I don't mean to say that I would unnecessarily restrict my activities, but that I do understand that my AfD opinions aren't always in line with consensus and so I don't consider it my area of greatest strength. I will be appropriately cautious in that arena. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Your AfD congruence with the community isn't all that bad [2], the obvious disparity being the 47 "deletes" for kept articles, which might be something you'd want to keep an eye out for. Otherwise you line up pretty well. But, then again, I generally considerable myself an inclusionist by nature, but my largest congruence with community thought is on deletions. [3] Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I will keep an eye on it, and hopefully learn and grow. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Muboshgu - your interpretation of consensus could well be that the minority iVotes represent the strongest arguments - I am voting for you because I believe you will not let iVote counts alone make the determination. It is the substantive arguments contained in the iVotes that should matter most. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm more than a bit worried about an editor with self-admitted liberal biases and substantial content contributions in the area of American politics considering themselves uninvolved in that topic area. That's just incorrect. I need to think on whether that's enough for me to oppose. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes; I would have been more comfortable with their position as voiced had they noted (I can't find where (if?) it's codified anywhere) how 'all editors have a bias, the neutral ones have learned to ignore it' or however it's phrased. Still, I have- possibly per my own bias!- assumed that that's what they intended :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Everyone certainly does have a bias, but where an admin has made substantive content contributions in a topic area, they are unambiguously involved. Whether or not they can successfully set aside their bias is not really the issue at that point. It's whether it could appear that they're acting based on bias, which can be just as bad. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree it would present the perfect weapon to one's opponents, whether they are political or not. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   If as an editor he hasn't been accused of, say, reverting POV edits under the guise of "reverting vandalism", there's little reason to suspect he'll be sneaky with the tools. He's stated WP:INVOLVED often enough, and most admins have proven capable of reading consensus even if we don't always agree with it.—Bagumba (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Being sneaky and making an administrative action in an area in which you are involved are not the same thing. Plenty of admins have created unnecessary drama by acting with nothing but good intention in areas where they were involved. We have WP:INVOLVED not just to avoid sneaky biased actions but also to avoid drama from actions taken with good intent that have the appearance of bias. I don't doubt the candidate's good faith. I do doubt whether he understands INVOLVED given his response above. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   WP:INVOLVED needs to be read carefully, but in his second reply to you, Muboshgu summarises it as it would apply to him very well: (1) he would be administratively involved on topics he'd made significant contributions to; (2) on topics where he has no prior involvement he could act as an uninvolved administrator. INVOLVED actually says "whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias", so he's erring on the side of caution there. I'm afraid, BU Rob13, that it appears you don't understand INVOLVED if you think it automatically disqualifies administrative action where the admin merely has a known view. --RexxS (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   He has edited within the topic area of American politics quite heavily based on his description, having a strong history of content contributions in difficult and contentious areas. That's great; we need content editors who make those edits and participate in discussions about difficult topics like how to handle sexual assault allegations against active politicians. Those edits/contributions are neither minor nor obvious, so the clause you quoted clearly doesn't apply. It has long been the conventional interpretation of INVOLVED that an admin cannot take non-obvious administrative actions in a content area they have a stated strong opinion on, especially where they've weighed in heavily on the content. It bothers me that my neutral is so worrisome to some editors that they're trying to reinterpret INVOLVED to allow admins with strong views on American politics to start blocking editors in that topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

seems like a pretty legit guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjkblue (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This [question seven] is an absolutely ridiculous question that I'd encourage Muboshgu to ignore. First, I don't see why you assume it was related to any trade rumors. Second, Muboshgu shouldn't provide details of a BLP incident. Third, it obviously wasn't "ordinary" incivility or the revdel-ing admin wouldn't have done it. Last, it certainly was needed in this case. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Moved here from underneath the question itself. Added [question seven] for clarity.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Assuming that Andrew's question is about (Redacted). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that should unquestionably have been revdel'd and I encourage the candidate not to answer the question, per Ed. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Pinging Andrew Davidson to confirm or deny. In my judgment, the diff is vandalism at a minimum and if the person mentioned is real also a severe BLP violation/libel. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And inappropriate speculation on the article subject too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a note on Andrew's talk page. It is fine to ask for clarification, but unsubstantiated speculation is nowhere near being appropriate. Alex Shih (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I think they handled the question well. My concern here was that the speculation in the question opens up room for more speculation as to the content of the revdel'd diff. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the redacted diff and it looks like borderline vandalism - I would have rev-deleted it myself. The policy that Andrew quoted is for user-to-user communication, not for libelous vandalism in a BLP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Topic-ban Davidson from RfAs. He adds little enough to the proceedings that his presence would not be missed (Two-thirds oppose votes, correct only 50% of the time?). As for lacking judgment, deliberately repeating egregious BLP violations on a page that is higher profile, when they were clearly sufficiently severe to need revd'ing will take some beating on the poor judgement scale. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 09:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129:See this thread.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 12:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen the original diff or content which was revdeled and did not repeat it. The candidate pointed to the incident as his primary reason for coming here and so it seems natural that we should then say something about it. If it is not permissible to discuss it in any way then the candidate should not have brought it up in the first place. Andrew D. (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He didn’t bring it up - you did, by asking Q7. With respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about and you are digging yourself into a hole. Find a ladder and throw away the spade. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did bring it up and I was just following his lead. He pointed to ANI so I went to that page and looked at the item to understand what he was talking about about. It's still there and so anyone can still follow this trail. I still don't know what the big deal is but if it is so shocking then it's no good just redacting a few bits and pieces; you have to wipe out the whole trail. WP:REVDEL seems to encourage people to handle the matter offline by email or IRC for this reason, but I have no experience of that process. Andrew D. (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. To be fair to Andrew D, I think this has gone on long enough now. Let's concentrate on the candidate. Deb (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree - and I'll add...PLEASE? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need, since that particular discussion ceased some (nine, actually) hours ago. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]