Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Godsy
Final (138/65/4); Scheduled to end 01:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrat discussion initiated by WJBscribe at 06:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Result: no consensus following bureaucrat discussion. –xenotalk 18:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination
– I began contributing two years ago. I originally edited under the name Lightgodsy for a short time, before requesting and receiving a name change to Godsy. I probably made about ten to thirty anonymous edits over the years before that. I have made over fifteen thousand edits since registering, of which less than one thousand are automated. I have requested and been granted six user rights, all of which I use fairly often, and have held without incident. I would like to submit myself for community review in the hope of taking up the tasks I describe in my answer to the first question below. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Co-nomination
I feel Godsy has the Right Stuff to be an admin, and so I putting my shoulder behind him as co-nominator to help move him forward. In doing this I take responsibility for his actions during his first year as admin, and will provide him with assistance and advice as needed.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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: I view adminship as a grant by the community of the tools necessary to carry out their will. That will is expressed through consensus which is determined by discussion on an individual issue or an existing policy or guideline. It is not a grant of extra status, weight in discussions, or special privileges beyond what is necessary to technically use the expanded set of rights. Process is important. Any action taken per ignore all rules which proves controversial should generally be reverted until the community decides whether or not to implement it. All that being said: I participate at redirects for discussion and miscellany for deletion regularly, and would like to close discussions there when the consensus dictates an action (generally deletion) that requires the administrator toolset. I am also interested in restoring pages for review and closing discussions that require the administrator tools at deletion review. Much more cautiously with the latter, as I have much less experience there. I would continue to answer file renaming requests, template-protected edit requests, and requested technical moves, as I already do with the advanced permissions I have been granted, while adding fully-protected edit requests to that list. I have a good grasp of the criteria for speedy deletion, especially G, R, U, T, and X, and would perform deletions based on them when applicable. That aside, I would like to work in the following areas to a lesser extent: I would add my name to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles, while also considering requests and implementing reasonable ones at requests for undeletion on occasion. I would do the same at requests for page protection and requests for permission. Lastly, I have a basic understanding of history merges, though I would only dip my toe into that pond, at least at first.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: The readers are the reason this encyclopedia exists, so anything I have done that benefits them the most. I have written seven articles. I do a lot of work with redirects; others who do similar work characterize it as being a "navigational gnome". I also perform tasks for those who lack the ability, such as at CAT:RENAME, WP:TPER, WP:RM/TR, and WP:AFC/R. I find encyclopedia maintenance work and other things that lead me to subjects that I would never otherwise gain any knowledge about enjoyable. I help out at third opinion, a leg of dispute resolution, from time to time. I recently created a template that aids relisting discussions at miscellany for deletion. I created a userbox a while back, which had been requested at the talk page of a WikiProject I participate in, that is now displayed by approximately ten editors. I drafted and proposed the redirect suppression criteria a few months ago.


 * 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: When I was fairly new to editing I was accused of being a sockpuppet. The claim was baseless, and found to be so. However, it was stressful, especially because I was new and did not really understand that process at the time. The only other major disagreement I have had was when a user was, among other things, moving drafts within the userspace of other users to the mainspace and immediately nominating them for deletion. Pages should not be moved in that manner unless one believes they meet the core content and notability policies. I silently observed the sockpuppetry investigation, and it sorted itself out. The community disapproved of the practices engaged in by the user that I had the second disagreement with. Disputes are adequately handled by discussion on talk pages along with the use of other processes the community has established. Fairly interpreted community consensus satiates me, whether or not my opinion prevails in the end.

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 Lourdes
 * 4. Hello. Your edits have a considerable and perhaps unreasonable number of self-reverts on a regular and continuing basis. On one hand, while it shows an openness to undo one's own edits, on the other hand, it shows significant errors in handling changes. My first question, leading from this is, what confidence can you provide editors here that you will not make errors (for example, mistaken blocks at the click of a button) and multiple self-reverts (analogically, multiple self-undos of blocks) if you are handed the admin bit?
 * A: Firstly, I'll provide additional information on some of those examples. I chose to restore the definition of a a recently removed reference instead of removing an empty call to it as I had in example 2, and it was easier to tell where the reference had been by taking that action. From a look at one of my edit summaries in example 3, I "remove[d the] template to test something", then restored it. Example 4, 10, 11, and 12 had to do with a semi-complicated category situation that I ran into which is described at User talk:Godsy. I cleaned up a pending edit in example 5, only to have it declined while I was doing so, which I took no issue with. Example 8 was a file within a group of files bearing meaningless names that I was tagging for renaming which I accidently tagged as well. That aside, I will make mistakes, that's inevitable. However, I take extra care when editing using special permissions (such as the template editor user right). I would do the same thing with the administrator toolset, especially in the more sensitive areas like the one you mention.


 * Additional question from Lourdes
 * 5. Please explain your edit summary in this diff. Thanks
 * A: It is taken verbatim from the page's edit notice which itself is a transclusion of Template:DOY page notice. In other words, a subject without an article should not have their birth or death listed within that type of article (i.e. a day of the year article).


 * Additional question from Chris troutman
 * 6. Many of the articles you've created were deleted (some at your own request) or are disambiguation pages or stubs. Why didn't you complete more substantial artcle contributions before asking for a mop?
 * A: None of the deleted pages listed at pages created were articles, they were redirects (or at least intended to be) in all but one case. I felt my contributions to the article namespace were adequate enough to request the mop when my edits to the other namespaces are taken into account along with them.


 * Additional question from Chris troutman
 * 7. I note that not only are you a self-nom, you also didn't use WP:ORCP. Why?
 * A: I chose to nominate myself firstly because there are a handful of administrators I might have approached for a nomination that I did not want to have to choose between, and secondly because doing so guarantees their knowledge of and support at your RfA if they choose to grant your request. I find a self-nomination to be more pure in the sense that it lacks any extra canvassing. The optional polling process serves as a good place for users to gauge what the community thinks of their chance of success, and some people like it, but it doesn't necessarily reflect how an actual RfA will turn out. I understand why polls are useful, but I have never personally cared for them.


 * Additional question from Innisfree987
 * 8. Could you comment on your contributions to the Caitlyn Jenner talk page, particularly topic #5 on that archived page? I realize the discussion is now a year and a half old so I don't want to assume it's still necessarily representative, whether of your views on that specific case or your sense of HARM policy more generally. Have either changed since then, and if yes, in what ways? Thanks.
 * A: A careful balance needs to be maintained between respecting how individuals identify and not censoring or revising. In regard to that specific discussion, a good case was made to leave that particular piece of information out. I adhere to MOS:IDENTITY, MOS:GENDERID, and WP:BLP (whether or not I personally agree with them all in their entirety).


 * Additional question from Ritchie333
 * 9. A brand new user creates an article. Its content, in its entirety, is : "The Eyre estate is in north London" without any sources. What action, if any, would you take?
 * A: I'm presuming the page title is appropriate, it isn't the recreation of a page with substantially the same content as was deleted per a deletion discussion, it doesn't duplicate an existing topic, there aren't multiple potentially notable estates named that in north London, and the user is brand new. The first thing I would do is either add an unreferenced tag or search for and add a source myself. If the subject appeared to be notable: As a participant of WP:DEADEND, I'm always inclined to add links if appropriate. I would also add it to any subcategories of London or other categories that were applicable, along with whichever was more appropriate between London-geo-stub or London-struct-stub. If the subject did not appear notable: I would add a notability tag and consider putting it up for proposed deletion. If I proceeded with that, a notice of the proposed deletion would be left on the talk page of the new user, along with a welcome message if they had not already received one. I would like to clarify something in regard to your comment "searching through existing articles and ... a Google search". I would do a Google search and it was my intent to imply that by stating "search for and add a source myself" It also wouldn't be uncommon for me to run it through our local search engine, which I constantly do with redirects listed at RfD. I would take steps to determine if the subject was notable before seeking its deletion, which again, it was my intention to imply. I think I took the question more generally (i.e. talking about a stub of that nature rather than honing in on the example) than you wanted, and I apologize if that is the case. Anyhow, thank you for the question and your participation here.
 * I've asked this question quite a lot at various RfAs, and what I've found is the people who instinctively do the search then and there and post the results without being explicitly prompted for them (eg: Requests for adminship/Fenix down Q16, Requests for adminship/Jakec Q18, Requests for adminship/Liz Q12) are the people that can put themselves in the shoes of an editor who's just had their work deleted or reverted and talk to them with a sympathetic ear and not just parrot off the stereotypical laundry list of policy violations. You could have asked for clarification about what the question meant, I might have even given you a hint of "search through previous RfAs where I have asked this question" but you went straight for the jugular of and PROD without a solid explanation. Ouch! It's really not designed to be a trick question, and I am sorry if you thought it was. In any case, perhaps everyone else will disagree with me and this RfA will pass, in which case I am hopeful the experience here will stick in the back of your mind as you wield your mop and bucket. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  17:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Miniapolis
 * 10. Thanks for standing for adminship. Last March, you created an article about a racist slur with AFC. Since AFC is intended to help new users, why did you go that route instead of creating the article directly?
 * A: I wanted a second opinion about whether or not the content of that article was suitable for the encyclopedia given the sensitive nature of the topic and the limited availability of sourcing to me. Specifically, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and though I thought I had enough content beyond that, I thought more input couldn't hurt.


 * Additional question from UNSC Luke 1021
 * 11: Uploading images is a key part of maintaining WikiPedia's standards. Without pictures we wouldn't have any clue what we were looking at! How many images have you uploaded, how many are still up today and how many were taken down and for what reasons?
 * A: I've uploaded seven files. I've only had one file deleted per my own request. I intended to use it for a topicon or userbox, but decided against it (its quality wasn't good). Of two of the other images, one was for a topicon and one for a userbox. Three images were from the Jewish Encyclopedia which is in the public domain. Last but not least, File:National flag carried by the 2nd Iowa Infantry throughout the Civil War.jpg. A user requested a free use image of that civil war flag. I realized that I would be in a position fairly soon that would put me close to where the flag is stored, so I decided to make the short trip there to photograph it.


 * Additional question from Ottawahitech
 * 12. Can an article about a notable subject be deleted if it is deemd to have No indication of importance (A7)?
 * A: No. It is a lower standard than notability, so if there is enough information to discern something is a notable subject, then that itself is the assertion of a credible claim of significance. However, the article text may be inappropriate in some other manner, e.g. patent nonsense (G1), no content (A3), etc.


 * Additional Question from UNSC Luke 1021
 * 13: Me again. What WikiProjects are you a part of, and how would you help WikiProjects overall, especially smaller, less popular ones that could contribute a decent amount to WikiPedia? I'm referring to WikiProjects about US States, smaller military topics, video games, etc.
 * A: I do not tend to edit based on interest in specific topic areas, rather I contribute to a diverse range of things that happen to come to my attention, so I am not really involved with the type of WikiProjects you are referring to. However, I am an active participant of WikiProject Redirect. I also participate in Dead-end pages which is similar to a WikiProject. I created a userbox, Template:Userbox Dead-end pages, for dead end pages, which will hopefully help attract more participation.


 * Additional question from Optimist on the run
 * 14. Under what circumstances would you consider editing the main page: a) directly, and b) indirectly via one of the transcluded templates? What precautions would you take when doing so?
 * A: I would edit the main page directly if there was community consensus to implement changes that I clearly understood and felt I could implement without error. I haven't had much involvement with in the news, did you know, on this day, or the featured content, though I have had some limited involvement with the first two. I would feel semi-comfortable editing one of the transcluded templates if it had a glaring typo or other error that I am sure is a mistake, though I'd still mention it at the appropriate venue (i.e. Main Page/Errors). I would be extremely careful, and take the same precautions I do when editing as a template editor. Template editor does a particularly good job of describing the precautions that should be taken along with the reasons they are important.


 * Additional question from RileyBugz
 * 15. How would you help fix mistakes that new editors have made?
 * A: It would vary greatly depending on the circumstance. There are many things users can do to that end both with and without the administrator toolset. I can point you to User talk:Godsy/Archive/2015 for a semi-complicated example of something I have done along those lines in the past. The user who made the mistakes that I helped clean up expressed their gratitude at User talk:Godsy/Archive/2015.


 * Follow-up question from Optimist on the run
 * 16. At WP:ERRORS, a concern is raised that the picture used for TFA may be a copyvio. The picture is a locally stored copy of a file on Commons, where a deletion debate has just started, and so far opinion seems divided. In the FA article in question on Wikipedia, the image has been replaced with a suitable alternative (hosted on Commons), and the WP:ERRORS request is to replace the image on the main page accordingly. Another editor agrees that this is the best solution. If you chose to answer the concern, what would you do?
 * A: If the image being suggested is clearly free use and now present in the article, while the other is under a cloud of questionable copyright status and no longer present in the article, I think it is reasonable to implement the new image per consensus at WP:ERRORS. However, this is outside my area of expertise, and I know their are active administrators who specialize in that sort of thing, so I probably wouldn't handle the matter.


 * Additional question from BU Rob13
 * 17. I want to give you a chance to respond to what I consider to be the most substantial concern raised in the oppose section. SMcCandlish brought up a series of two discussions where you appear to have relitigated the issue of a template deprecation by bringing it to VPP after it was already decided in an RfC on an MoS talk page. Broadly, where do you believe the line lies between seeking wider community consensus and forum-shopping? More specifically, why did you feel the need to re-raise a very specific issue settled by a properly-advertised RfC at a venue usually reserved for large-scale proposals relating to project governance? Would you do the same thing if you found a similar closed discussion today?
 * A: Thanks Rob. The original discussion was Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167. I had no knowledge of it at the time it took place. I then participated in Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9 because I noticed the Template for discussion banner which appears on all transclusions of the template advertising the discussion. Another user there asked a question after some discussion had taken place "Can anyone show me the discussion that deprecated these?", so I looked into it, found the original discussion, and posted a link to it. I thought it had low participation with only four users supporting it. It wasn't held at templates for discussion where the discussion would have been visible to anyone that came across one of the templates, and none of the templates talk pages were not notified of it (e.g. Template talk:English variant notice, Template talk:American English, and Template talk:British English). The aforementioned other user expressed disagreement the deprecation of the templates, but noted the discussion had already been archived (never formally closed), so I offered to start a discussion on the matter, and did at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 126. I made sure to word it neutrally and notified everyone who participated in the prior discussion along with Template talk:English variant notice. I still agree with the comments I made at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 126, with two concessions: I think TfD would have been a better choice of venue of my part, and I mistated there that the original discussion wasn't an RfC. I don't think WT:MOS was a good choice of venue for the first discussion, in retrospect preferring WP:TFD or Template talk:English variant notice. I feel that four support !votes having the effect of deprecating templates that appear on 10,000+ pages, especially outside of TfD which properly advertises with "banners" on each translcusion of the template itself, and without even posting notifications on the talk pages of the affected templates, is inappropriate. I view the whole matter as more of a disagreement on the appropriate venue, rather than a forum shopping issue. I think the deprecation should have been argued at TfD. That aside, though I disagree with SMcCandlish on this issue, I appreciated the nice things they had to say in portions of their oppose. Now that the specifics are out of the way, I'll address the broader part of your question. Forum shopping occurs when an issue is raised appropriate forum, someone gets an answer they don't agree with, and takes it elsewhere. It may also contain non-neutral language and non-neutral notifications. I did not engage in any of that, but rather, I believe the actions I've described above show validly seeking wider community consensus. Lastly, would I do the same thing if I came across the same circumstances today? I would, except I'd choose TfD as the forum.


 * Additional question from Nsk92
 * 18. The Articles created tool lists 23 articles you created; of them 10 have been deleted, most others are disambiguation pages, plus a couple of stubs like Grease fire, one nice C-class article, Noah's wine and one short DYK article, Adam's ale (unrated, but probably start-class). Could you comment in more detail on your content work? Could you give any specific examples of articles that you substantially expanded and/or improved? Have you thought about doing more article-writing?
 * A: None of the deleted pages listed at pages created were articles, they were redirects (or at least intended to be) in all but one case. That aside, a lot of my major content work stems from redirects for discussion as Tavix describes below in regard to Adam's ale. Noah's wine was split off from that. Confiture was the result of Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 5. Someone said to me one day that they had known the person who invented plastic eyeglass lenses. I was dubious of that claim, and Columbia-Southern Chemical Corporation was born from my fruitless investigation of the matter. I would have created and written defeat device, but someone beat me to the punch, so I added the information I had gathered about the subject there. When I was fairly new to Wikipedia, I cleaned up and expanded Good faith and Cutex. I have also wikified a lot of content through my work at WP:DEP. Yes, I have thought about doing more article writing. Thus far, I've done so when a good topic comes to my attention that isn't already adequately covered, I'm at least semi-interested in, and good sourcing can be found freely available online.


 * Additional question from Banedon
 * 19. What is this Legacypac issue some of the oppose votes (as of time of writing) are referring to?
 * A: was moving drafts that clearly failed the core content and notability policies residing within the userspace of other users to the article namespace. A page should not be moved from the userspace of another user to the article namespace unless it is suitable for it. I reverted about 12 moves that they made. Legacypac also subsequently nominated some of the pages for deletion immediately after moving them, once stating in their move summary "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying". The standards for a page residing in the userspace versus the article namespace are vastly different, hence miscellany for deletion and articles for deletion evaluate content differently, so it is not appropriate to move a page from one namespace to another expressly to nominate it for deletion. Some of the pages they moved inappropriately were also speedily deleted and deleted by proposed deletion. I challenged some of these out of process deletions at the appropriate forums and most of them were restored. Legacypac started an administrators' noticeboard incidents thread on the matter as a whole, which almost boomeranged on them, but ended with no action. In the end, the community strongly disapproved of the practices employed by Legacypac, though they were blocked for another matter. They did not return to editing after their block expired until yesterday.
 * 20. Is this the discussion in question the various editors are referring to? Can I get a good sense of the dispute from this, or is there any other thread to look at?
 * A: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917, User talk:Godsy, and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919 shed some light on the complicated matter. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Links for Godsy:
 * Edit summary usage for Godsy 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 While his somewhat low percent of mainspace edits had me concerned, the rest of his contribs more than makes up for it. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as my default position. I've seen Godsy around the project and they've struck me as a net positive. The answer to #1 is particularly strong. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have some concerns about the forum-shopping issue, but for now, I intend to remain in the supports. I'm entirely unimpressed with the opposes that cite only the self-nomination. Godsy obviously could have obtained a nomination, but there's no obligation for an editor to do so. Frankly, it's fairly brave to weather the RfA process without relying on the reputation of a nominator. ~ Rob 13 Talk 07:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that I recall this whole Legacypac thing, I can firmly state that Godsy was on the right side of it. I'm rather blatantly a deletionist when it comes to userspace drafts, which is the position Legacypac held as well. Their methods were horrible, though, and Godsy was right to challenge them. Unless there's a lot more going on there that I wasn't aware of, Godsy was a voice of reason in that dispute. We can't punish one editor for helping to clean up another's mess. ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, my concerns about the forum-shopping have decreased. That happened in August 2015, ~8 months after he joined. It's been 1.5 years. His answer to my question indicating he would address the concerns at TfD is appropriate. ~ Rob 13 Talk 13:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support. Godsy and I are both regulars at RFD and I've always been impressed by his contributions. If I remember right, my first interaction with Godsy came after I nominated what I thought was an obscure euphemism for water at RFD, and Godsy turned it into an impressive article. I had actually thought about offering to nominate him for adminship just the other day, but he beat me to the punch before I got around to it. RFD sure could use another admin keeping an eye on the discussions, and Godsy is a perfect candidate to do just that. Good luck! -- Tavix  ( talk ) 01:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support No obvious problems, undoubtedly ready for adminship. Joshualouie711 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)  Changed !vote to Neutral.
 * Support After review of the Legacypac incidents, I do not believe that Godsy was sufficiently at fault to be disqualified from becoming an admin. As the self-nomination and content creation does not concern me, I am again supporting. Joshualouie711 (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak support. (Moved from "Neutral".) Yeah, I can't let a slight questionable incident where Godsy was obviously going through the correct channel to discuss the issue prevent me from supporting the obvious net positive they are to Wikipedia. Park me here. Steel1943  (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (Moving back to "Neutral".) Steel1943  (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ...And now I'm back here since I feel the need to move my comment to the "Support" section just to counteract some of these opposes I don't agree with. Steel1943  (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (...And moving back to "Neutral" ... again.) Steel1943  (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ...And, I'm pretty sure I'm done wavering on this. I blame the fact that I am familiar with Godsy's editing for my wavering support. But now, since this RFA is getting really close to the "beaucrat discretion range", I figure I may as well move back here to help with the percentage being higher for what some call the "crat chat". Steel1943  (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support – I have frequently appreciated Godsy's input to community discussions all throughout the project. There is nothing I can find that would cause me to doubt that he would be anything other than an asset to this project as an administrator. Mz7 (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Confirming support. There are definitely a few perceptive opposes. Although we have the benefit of allowing ourselves to be WP:IMPERFECT while editing, administrating deserves more caution, as a single bad block can seriously affect the blocked editor's interaction with Wikipedia; the same is true for premature deletions and page creators. I strongly recommend more restraint as an administrator: think things through and consult the community/other admins if you're not sure about something. There is no shame in doing so; after all, that's what this is all about: collaboration. I find myself struggling, however, to understand the editors opposing on the basis of self-nomination. It is true that a nomination statement by a well-respected editor can strongly boost an RfA, but it is not procedurally necessary to proceed with such a statement, and some of our best, most well-respected administrators also nominated themselves at RfA. I'm also skeptical about the arguments that two years is "not enough" or that Godsy is "new". We should be looking at the qualities and nature of the candidate's contributions (which some of the opposes definitely do), not the arbitrary amount of time they've been active. It is also the case that some of our most well-respected administrators also received the toolset in less than two years. Ultimately, Godsy does do helpful work on the project, and the administrator toolset would allow him to expand that helpful work, but the concerns about his editing can, should, and I trust will be reflected upon moving forward, regardless of the outcome here. Mz7 (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I was initially skeptical as I haven't had much interaction with Godsy. After a thorough review of his talk page (including archives) and a random sampling of his contribs along with his xtools/supercount reports, I feel comfortable in supporting him for adminship. -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> talk 02:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Candidate will do fine and be of benefit to the project with the tools. Opposing based on self-nomination without regard to the candidate at hand is unnecessarily bureaucratic at best. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting for the record that I find many of the opposes to be spectacularly unpersuasive, and I remain unconvinced that the user would perform poorly with the tools. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 06:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also strongly support per Biblio, Oshwah, and Mr rnddude below. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 06:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support clearly a net positive. He will be able to help out with the tools.  No red flags.Tazerdadog (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely. — foxj 04:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per the rationale put forward by User:Tavix. bd2412  T 04:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support clearly a WP:NETPOSITIVE. The self-nom doesn't concern me.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 04:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - I have some doubts from past interactions with the candidate, but really adminship isn't a big deal, and none of my concerns are related to how they would use the specific rights they are applying for. I also appreciate the self-nomination; while they tend to be discouraged on enwiki, I've always self-nominated for wiki roles myself. I think it makes sense, as these are not a big deal and basically just you volunteering to take on some extra work, that you are the best judge of when you would like to take on said extra work. Thanks for volunteering, and I'm sure that if elected you'll do a fine job. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support to counteract the ridiculous idea that self noms should always be opposed. Spartaz Humbug! 06:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support -Good candidate here, and the self nom doesn't concern me at all. Class455 (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support to balance out BMK's ridiculous oppose. BethNaught (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support- ridiculous first oppose needs cancelling out. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  08:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Nick (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support  → Call me  Razr   Nation  09:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support because I think giving him the tools will be a net positive to the project. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support per .  lNeverCry   10:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Self noms are usually a sign that an editor has the trust of at least one, if not more, other editors to the point that those editors feel they should put forward a nomination. This is a good thing. However, it should not preclude a sufficiently experienced editor in good standing having the confidence (if not the courage) to run the gamut that is RfA. Blackmane (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. likely net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Candidate has been here more than long enough to show commitment and learn how things work. Clean block log, civil interactions, has created content with inline citations, and kudos for a self nom - good move in sidestepping ORCP, that is turning out an overcautious venue and a deterrent to good candidates.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Somewhat surprised that this RfA has so little support compared to that other RfA. Editors claiming that RfA is a popularity contest are not wrong. Good contributions at RfD. SST  flyer  13:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Support great work at RFD, clean block log, good content Atlantic306 (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Seems likely to be a net positive to the encyclopedia. He's made some mistakes, sure, but so have we all. I'm confident he'll make a good administrator. BMK's oppose is, frankly, as ridiculous as it was in 2007 when Kmweber did it, and will likely meet the same result in time. I'm confident the closing crat will give it exactly the weight it deserves. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. User does great work at WP:RFD, which always needs more admins to watch over it, and although I don't always agree with their arguments, they are always reasonable, sound, and policy-based. I will echo Tavix and say that if Godsy had asked me, I would likely have served as a (co-)nominator. I am confident that if given the mop, Godsy would take the reasonable criticisms of opposers to heart. I think SMcCandlish's oppose is more over a good-faith, policy-based disagreement than over any real disqualifier for the adminship. It's an instance in which Godsy disagreed with the result of a less trafficked discussion and held a more-trafficked RFC where the consensus was to overturn the previous discussion. Maybe it's suboptimal to have repeated discussions, but the second discussion shows that if the first had received more attention, the result likely would not have been the same. Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. I've seen Godsy around in deletion forums a bit. I think he's been around for long enough and has a good spread of contributions. The answers look good and I don't share the concerns in the oppose opinions below - I think his answer to Q4 is fair enough. A self-corrected mistake shouldn't count against an editor. Deryck C. 18:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Not a perfect candidate (see first half of SMcCandlish's oppose) but I still expect that sysoping Godsy will be a net positive. By the way, I disagree with the rest of SMcCandlish's oppose. Self-nominations are perfectly ok and mentionning one's userrights provides relevant info. Opposing systematically based on one of these criteria just hurts the project by discarding otherwise reasonable candidates. And on the topic of unreasonable reasons to oppose, setting a minimum of five years reduces the pool of potential candidates to an unsustainable level. Pichpich (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 23) Support RFD is an area desperately in need of new admins. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 24) Support user is clueful and I have no serious concerns. Two years is more than enough experience. Lepricavark (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 25) Support I haven't found anything wrong with Godsy, and I like the way he words his sentences, implying good communication, a good quality for an admin. I've done some spotchecking on his edits in non-mainspaces, and I haven't seen any of the battleground mentalities mentioned in the oppose section. In particular, I think that specific error diffs mentioned in the oppose section show a good light on Godsy's temperament. Good luck on the RfA! Icebob99 (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Seems to be a well intentioned, well informed, and even-keeled editor. InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 27) Support regular at RfD like I am, and I respect his contributions like those of the admin regs. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. I have had the opportunity to interact with Godsy at WP:RFD, where I can always count on them to offer insightful and thoughtful comments. I trust that Godsy will make a fine Administrator. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Time for me to get off the fence. I was somewhat concerned about hat-collecting, and am no stickler for content creation but would rather see more mainspace edits (including article talk pages) and fewer in the "back room" (WP namespace), but I see the candidate as a net positive. The help at RfD is appreciated, and I think you'll grow into the rest of the job.  Mini  apolis  00:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 30) Support You could call it moral support, weak support, or something like that, but I do want it counted as a full support. There are some valid concerns that have been raised here, and I hope Godsy will take them to heart. But I have no doubt Godsy is a net positive to the project, and some of the oppose votes seem quite frivolous. I'd be happy to have Godsy working alongside me at RfD. --BDD (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. Seems to have a level head and a willingness to seek consensus.  He argues for his point of view, but I don't see a battleground mentality.  He's not perfect, but I think a number of the opposes are engaging in excessive creeping of admin standards.  In particular, I view a willingness to self-nom as quite bold, in the spirit of Wikipedia.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 32) Support We need more admins, and Godsy is a trustworthy candidate for the job. Full Rune Speak, child of Guthix 03:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 33) Support He's willing to perform a variety of administrative tasks. Good luck!– Gilliam (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Trustworthy, experienced and willing to work. Bradv  03:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 35) Strong Support The candidate shows strong experience, thoughtful contribution, and calm in the face of conflict. I have never worked with this editor before, but after thorough examination of his work and his behavior, I am impressed. If he can use the tools further improve his contributions to Wikipedia, then I say we grant them. In addition to my support, he has my commendation. Alex Eng <small style="font-size:50%;">( TALK ) 03:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. After reviewing the candidate (and the oppose !votes), their adminship seems like a gain for the project. Killiondude (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 37) Support, albeit weakly. I couldn't place where I'd seen Godsy's name before, until the Legacypac/stale drafts/MfD battles from a few months ago came up. I do think some of Godsy's decisions in that dispute were poorly thought through, and reflected a willingness to fall back on process-wonkery to get his way. On the other hand, other participants in that dispute behaved much worse, in ways that make process-wonkery seem like a fair defense. On balance I'd just encourage him to tread very softly and take cues from more experienced admins when "process" issues come up, especially when someone is accused of not following the right process/filing the right paperwork/putting the right covers on the TPS reports. Admins should have a flexible mindset about these things. All that being said, while I think there are good reasons to be cautious here, the oppose section of this RfA is cringe-inducing. One of the things we need most on this project is good critical thinking skills, and if your reason for opposition isn't grounded in evidence or specific to this candidate, then it's a bad reason. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly is "cringe-inducing" about my view, particularly since it's no different to numerous other RfAs where I've said the same thing, and since I also said "In any case, perhaps everyone else will disagree with me and this RfA will pass"? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I should have said "much of the oppose section", or maybe "there's so much muck down there that it's hard to find the good stuff" ;) But as long as we're here, I think your "deal breaker" is picky. It's like those exercises where you ask people to write step-by-step instructions for making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and then you ding them for poor process documentation when they say "spread the jelly on one slice of bread" but fail to specify "using a butter knife". Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I left the edit window open while making tea. Actual input from cat: K,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,CDB
 * I think the core of it is simply "can we just put policy to one side for a minute and talk about the content?" Taking this on board, I am going to use common sense and decide you did not deliberately give your cat access to an admin account in order to replace the main page with a picture of a dead mouse. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I can't find any reason not to support. Some of the comments in the oppose section are among the least valid I've seen on any RfA. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per MSGJ. An all around type of editor.  BlackJackPlayer (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strike sock. Patient Zerotalk 13:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I am seeing a level headed and intelligent and knowledgeable user. I am waiting for SMcCandlish's explanation of why he feels what I see to be appropriate behaviour in opening up a discussion to the community to ensure proper consensus is forum shopping, and so may change my mind. But after studying that and the other incidents closely, I am satisfied that Godsy has the Right Stuff.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  12:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support the self-nom bit is a plus in my opinion. He has an interesting history but one that is not too troubling. There are current admins who I am more wary off so I am not too worried with giving him the mop. 🔯 Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">🍸 (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I think I belong here. The candidate has a very different focus from me, and with all those small edits and self-reverts, a very different editing pattern. Two years' tenure is on the low end for admin candidates these days, but the number of edits is acceptable, I have no objection to self-noms (I was a reluctant candidate, myself), and in my view the candidate makes a good case: demonstrated need for the mop, a well phrased exposition of their philosophy of adminship, and they touch on their previously granted rights as part of explaining why they see themselves as qualified. I don't share SMMcCandlish's view of the discussions regarding templates. Concerning Ritchie333's question, I share the concern, but the candidate did present looking for sources as the other thing they would probably do. I would however caution the candidate, if successful, to take on board the criticisms here concerning modes of engagement in case of disagreement. It's fine to be a policy wonk, and it's good to be an expert in templates and the venues in which they are discussed, but the candidate's heavy use of links and in-house abbrevs. may be very offputting to a newbie, and it's important to realize that many editors are here just to write, or to work in their particular area, and to be ready both to listen and to put things in a simpler way. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Per BU Rob13's and The Wordsmith's comments. He will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support While I do not think the newly added co-nomination statement is strong, I respect SilkTork’s offer for helping. Given the nature of the mop, I imagine that mentorship, in some form, is inevitable for every new admin regardless of prior experience with Wikipedia as a whole. In addition, I like the answers to the questions, especially Q1, and I appreciate that Godsy wants to focus in specific areas of familiarity. ZettaComposer (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Attention-seekers in the oppose section are particularly laughable this time around. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you going to give an actual reason to support this candidate or just ridicule those opposing who have actual concerns? Because if not I suggest this statement be struck.  Jay  Jay What did I do? 21:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting my signature in the "support" section means I endorse the nomination statements and see no reason to oppose the candidate's request for the tools. That's how it's always been. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) This is more of a moral support than a strong endorsement, but I am troubled by some aspects of how editors are treating this RfA. First, I do want to acknowledge that there are multiple opposes that are thoughtful and substantive, and they do indeed raise valid issues. But automatically opposing based on a self-nom? Or requiring 5 years of experience? Or requiring participation in a given number of WikiProjects? Some of these opposes veer so far into self-parody that I feel obliged to push back. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Opabinia regalis. The issues raised aren't serious enough for me to worry that Godsy would misuse the mop.  --Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 01:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. No brainer – it's well-known that whenever we try to make the hard decisions, there will be enemies made. Godsy will make an excellent admin, no contest!   Paine Ellsworth   u/ c  02:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - If there was ever an RFA to point out all the flaws in the current RFA atmosphere... I think Jesus Christ Himself would garner more than a few opposes were He to run for RFA today (not enough time on Earth, just trying to gain the hat of "Saviour", simply avoided conflicts instead of resolving them...). In all seriousness, I think that giving him the mop will be a net gain to the project, and while I don't discount the opposes that actually spell out an actual concern about the candidate's behaviour or competence, I do not think they outweigh the positives that Godsy can contribute with the mop. (I do discount the 'I won't support any self-noms, period' or 'must meet this given arbitrary standard, period' !votes because that's entirely process-oriented instead of the results-oriented environment that Wikipedia aspires to be, with policies like WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY) PGWG (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - I'm just not convinced by the oppose votes. In the case cited by SMcCandish, Godsy acted with noble intentions and even explained it upfront in the RfC question. I don't perceive self-reverting as a big deal, or not using "show preview", etc. Most concerning was the Legacypac issue, which from what I have seen would almost certainly have resulted in warnings for both parties if it had gone to Arbcom. But while it's ideal if an editor can just step aside and let the other guy have his way while the dispute is hashed out, I can also understand if an editor takes a stand to defend his or her position during dispute resolution. Importantly, Godsy was quite civil in all of the dispute that I've read. At worst he sounded frustrated, but he certainly wasn't rude. That leaves some really bad reasons to oppose. Some of those reasons are so bad that I empathize with others who've supported just to "counterbalance" the oppose vote. With no strong reason to oppose, I default to supporting, and so am parking myself here. Banedon (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 09:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support: I think we need such energetic Admins. I don't see any problems with his/her background. -- M h hossein   talk 11:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Yngvadottir has the right of this. Couldn't say it any better. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - The history is interesting and the candidate has clearly learned lessons. Overall I think Godsy has the right attitude and will grow into the role. Poltair (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. After reviewing Godsy's answers to the questions, and all the discussion on this page and the talkpage, I come out in support. Godsy has two years of editing experience, is dedicated to the project, and has specialized in at least one area where we are told additional administrators are needed. This is far from the strongest support for a candidate that I've ever felt, because some of the opposers raise legitimate issues. Most, though not all, of the significant concerns can be grouped under the two general headings of "attention to detail" and "breadth of experience." All of us make mistakes sometimes, some typographical and some substantive, and no candidate has worked in all the areas that come with admin tools. Still, if this RfA succeeds, I urge Godsy to proceed cautiously in his early days as administrator, triple-checking his steps to begin with, and easing gently into areas where he has not previously worked. Consistent with my comments on the talkpage, I remain very troubled by many (not all!) of the opposers' rationales. For example, at least eight editors are now opposing based in whole or part on the fact that the candidate self-nominated. Even more troubling, when asked to explain why this is a problem, several of those opposers have stated or suggested (below or on the talkpage) that Godsy violated a well-established and well-understood community norm against self-noms on RfA, thereby showing that he doesn't know or care about the community's expectations or that he lacks the wiki-political savvy to be an admin. But there is no such community norm against self-noms on RfA and there never has been. For example, in 2015, 6 of the 21 successful RfAs were self-noms (Yamaguchi, Wbm1058, Cyclonebiscuit, Opabinia regalis, Jakec, SarekOfVulcan). I have reviewed those RfA pages and as far as I see, in no instance did even a single editor oppose any of those RfAs on the basis of the self-nom or even look askance at it. The idea that a candidate should obviously know better than to self-nominate seems to have been arisen for the first time in this very RfA. It is fundamentally unfair to oppose on this basis. I've already addressed on the talkpage the opposes based on the candidate's longevity. The candidate has edited for two full years. He may or may not have established, in those two years, that he is qualified to be an administrator, but it's inconsistent with both historical expectations at RfA and the needs of the project to say that two years of editing is not long enough as a matter of principle. (And at least two opposers describe the candidate as "new," which seems simply wrong.) A few other oppose rationales are also deeply dubious (though I hasten to add again that others are perfectly legitimate). RfA candidates open themselves up to a complete and careful evaluation of their entire wiki-record, and should expect criticism, some of which they or others may think unfair. But no candidate should have to put up with being opposed, while volunteering to do extra work for the project, on bases such as (below) "I find [his] lack of image uploads weird" or (on the talkpage) "[b]ecause of Godsey's inabilities to read and think this RfA has turned into the mess so many editors bemoan." All of us as Wikipedians can and must do better with this process. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Saw this on Monday, was going to stay silent neutral per SMcCandlish & TParis. Seeing the legendary Legacypac seemingly confirm concerns, made me want to cast a rare oppose, as nothing worse than a battlefield admin, and there does seem a probability a good crat would discount several of the opposes. Decided to personally check out some of your contribs first for fairness, and was surprised to see nothing but quality. Have skimmed through several thousand of your contribs now, and all looks good, so force to vote support. You don't come across as battlefield. Just a little stubborn about certain things, but as IMO your judgement is excellent and your views align with whats good for the reader, that's a good thing. Also per Yngvadottir and Newyorkbrad. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per New York Brad and PGWG. While not perfect, Godsy seems to be helpful, knowledgeable, and willing to learn. A net positive for the project. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - trustworthy editor. Net positive for the project. PhilKnight (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - Overall I think that the editor would be a net positive as an admin, and the answers to the questions, while not necessarily the best I have seen, are still satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, qualified and dedicated editor. I'm not swayed by the opposition arguments. -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support I have been watching this for a while and decided that this is where I belong. My major concern was SMcCandlish's oppose as I have found them to be a very clueful editor, especially at this venue. However, the diffs presented did not sway me overmuch, I have seen much worse abuse of forum shopping from some of our best admins. If anything it shows dedication to the project. I am also not seeing the temperament issues that others are claiming (lack of diffs doesn't help). Given the nature of this RFA, which is a terrible advertisement for the process, Godsey has actually displayed great temperament. The self-nom is also a big plus in my book. Too often I see support !votes simply because the nominator is well known (and occasionally opposes because editors don't like them). Going it alone is not only brave, but removes this bias. AIR corn (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Godsy has been a perceptive and valuable editor whenever I've interacted with them on Wikipedia. The maturity and calmness Godsy has shown in light of some of the opposes IMO indicates they have the right temperament to become an admin. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 05:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Some of the opposes gave me pause but I find many of the others to be outside the issues such as trustworthiness and good work in an area of concentration that we should pay most attention to. Some of these criteria are novel, harsh and almost arbitrary. I am not persuaded to oppose based on these types of criteria, like self-nomination and unduly long participation in the project or work on other WikiProjects. While some of the opposition is based on principles which I believe are valid, I do not interpret Godsey's overall record as being outside these principles. I also am persuaded to support for several reasons expressed by Newyorkbrad. The support of several users who have worked with him and see no temperament issues is important. My take on his interactions with others is that he will show civility and a good demeanor as an administrator. I see an advocate in some past interactions but not an uncivil one. I also endorse the comments of User:Yngvadottir, User:Opabinia regalis and User:FeydHuxtable as reasons for support, and their appropriate notes of advice or caution. Donner60 (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Just right by my standards, this editor is qualified to be an admin. Question 2's answer swayed me a lot in my decision, as well as the candidates overall demeanor. Almost all of the opposer's rationales are very weak. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) Support I think he showed the right stuff when dealing with the Legacypac situation, most importantly, an understanding of the policy implications of Legacypac's antics. That demonstrates sound judgment; having Silk Tork behind his nomination is icing on the cake.  --Drmargi (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Support I read the opposes carefully, and I don't question their validity, but on balance I think that they don't go to the heart of things (certainly some seem a bit ... novel). Seems to have clue, and that's something you don't always find in a candidate. I admit to liking his answer to #16 very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 22) Net positive. Perfection is not required, dedication and clue seem sufficient. —Kusma (t·c) 12:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 23) Qualified Support Definitely has clue, and a need for the tools (RfD seems like an obvious area for this) - though I would take the comments in the Oppose section regarding temperament and forum-shopping on board should you get the tools, as I do see some of the concerns there. Mike1901 (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 24) Support: Having read through the page, I find that Godsey, though not perfect, has the temperament and abilities to be an administrator. There's work that needs to be done and I hope Godsey will have the opportunity to do it. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   14:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 25) Support as a net positive to the project, and per the overall effect of his answers. Frankly I view many of the opposes as ridiculous. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 26) Support – I'm confident that Godsy won't have to be desysopped for cause (which is my minimum). I was thinking of opposing because it rained pretty hard last night but that would just be silly. Debouch (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Sound candidate. --Pudeo (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 28) Support as user appears to be a WP:NETPOSITIVE, and having another admin working on RFD would be useful, as noted by above. I have read through the Support and Oppose arguments in order to come to this decision. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Definitely a WP:NETPOSITIVE to Wiki. Satisfactory answers to the questions with knowledge of policies. TheMagikCow (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 30) Applaud the enthusiasm.  I can't agree with "feuding and battleground mentality" or "gross intemperance with those who disagree with him", but he does seem a bit too sure of himself.  Process wonkery, yes, but the problem is of a too shallow appreciation of policy.  I guess this vague problem inspired the surprising "too new" opposes.  I hope that the criticism offered in this RfA will cure the overconfidence, and his RfA in 6 months will pass.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Moved to Support per Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Godsy.  There is no chance that Godsy will misuse the tools.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - switched from oppose; you can see my original oppose rationale here. You're basically watching me argue with myself here. I've said in a few RfAs before that we can't ask admin candidates to be perfect, only that they won't deliberately misuse the tools and intentionally harm the encyclopedia. I argued on the talk page that this is exactly the case with Godsy, that there's no reason to suspect they will deliberately misuse the tools, and in fact I further believe that Godsy will be a cautious sort who will seek advice in unsure matters, as demonstrated by such things as submitting a potentially controversial article through AFC for a second opinion. It's nonsense for me to be anywhere else but in the support column, then. My apologies to the candidate for taking two full days to come around to this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 32) Pro-forma support to cancel out UNSC Luke 1021's oppose, which has a decent claim to be the single stupidest comment I've ever seen in an RFA. &#8209; Iridescent 16:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You probably haven't seen the self‐nomination oppose votes. —MartinZ02 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Opposition on the basis of self-nominations is a long and respected tradition, regardless of whether one personally agrees with it or not. Opposition on the grounds of "hasn't uploaded a sufficient amount of non-free content" and "isn't a member of a wikiproject", not so much. &#8209; Iridescent 16:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, opposition on the basis of self-nominations was the speciality of a just a single editor about seven years ago. The community was divided about whether routinely opposing nominations on this basis was even permissible, let alone meritorious. It was ultimately decided to grudgingly tolerate it, before that editor flamed out for other reasons, but I don't recall anyone actually agreeing with him, and I certainly wouldn't make him a role model. Since that editor left I don't recall anyone else opposing RfAs on this basis and in my support comment above I've marshaled evidence that self-noms at RfA have been routine and uncontroversial. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just saying, is it really necessary to Support just to cancel out someone else's !vote? The closing bureaucrat will weigh the !votes appropriately. Joshualouie711 (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And if the closing bureaucrat promotes the candidate with just 62% support, may the gods have mercy on their soul. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * True enough. Actually, I'll be surprised if this RfA closes with over 60% support-the last few hours tend to bring a flood of opposers. Joshualouie711 (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. The editor appears qualified and some of the opposition is ridiculous. Jonathunder (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Self-nominations are a non-issue; so are image uploads. Many editors use Wikipedia through a screen reader; many others simply don't think visually and prefer to edit text. I'm voting to cancel out the votes on these invalid grounds. Mihirpmehta (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I am not at all troubled by the self-nomination; most importantly, the nominee seems to have a clue, shows interest in improving the project, seems to have enough maturity and experience to be trusted with a mop. Net positive. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Net positive. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Looking at the oppose section, I first of all see the old, tired, impersonal arguments that are characteristic of this process, such as "2 years is not enough" (when you see that some of those people are suggesting a five-year standard, you will then seriously doubt the credibility of their argument anyway), "not enough content work" (he has actually created two or three articles of not insignificant substance), and some absurd rationales about how self-noms must be automatically opposed. RfAs are supposed to be decided by consensus, and several opposes would clearly be invalidated under the consensus policy, since it requires that arguments must be policy-based in order to be counted. However, that requirement is usually quite conveniently ignored in RfAs. The more "substantive" opposes are mostly per SMcCandlish's rationale, as well as the "Legacypac incident." Let's start with SMC's oppose. First of all, SMC cites this thread as an example of one of Godsy's wrongdoings. Godsy had retargeted WP:PMC to the page on the pagemover right, with the clear intent of WP:PMC being a shortcut to the "Redirect suppression criteria" section of that page, although Godsy evidently forgot to specifically direct the shortcut to the criteria section (wouldn't it make sense that WP:PMC would redirect to a "criteria" section on a page about page movers?). As Godsy noted when retargeting the redirect, the shortcut to this section of the MOS was hardly ever used in practice, so a good case could be made for retargeting it to a page much more likely to get attention. I would also note that Godsy was perfectly civil in the thread SMC cites. As for SMC's example of Godsy's supposed forum-shopping, this incident was over one and a half years ago (as others have pointed out), when Godsy didn't even have a year of experience yet. The dredging up of missteps from a user's early history is completely unreasonable and is one of the main reasons why RfA has developed a reputation as such a miserable place. Not to mention that fact that it might not have even been a misstep to begin with; after all, the original RfC was on the MOS talk page and garnered little attention, and Godsy simply restarted the discussion on the Village Pump, where a broader consensus is more likely. SMC and others also make some argument about how it was unwise for Godsy to cite his current userrights in his nomination statement, and why this indicates a desire to collect hats. But such a conclusion requires rather complicated mental gymnastics; in my view, Godsy was simply trying to show that he has already been trusted with some advanced permissions and has used them responsibly and without incident. Since when did it become inappropriate to cite prior experience? When you apply for a job in the real world, it is considered good practice to mention previous positions of trust that you have held. But on Wikipedia, that is suddenly a sign of power hunger. (Imagine if employers thought this way!) And even SMC notes that Godsy has "a more chill temperament than many candidates", rather effectively discrediting those who accuse Godsy of having a "battleground mentality" (accusations of BATTLEGROUND may appear "policy-based" on their face, but in practice such accusations are often used as a coverup for the fact that the opposer simply does not like the opinions of the candidate). Finally, in regard to the Legacypac incident, let's take a look at the ANI thread against Godsy. Legacypac was found to have personally attacked Godsy, and a vote to topic ban LP from many areas was actually quite close (7 supporting, 9 opposing). Note that LP also did some process circumvention himself to get articles deleted, as Godsy pointed out in his response to Q19 (one of LP's move summaries: "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying"). The whole episode culminated in this RfC, in which Legacypac's views were overwhelmingly and decisively rejected. That makes the whole point moot, does it not? As such, I do not find any of the reasons cited by the opposition to be valid, and as such I default to the support column. I realize this a very long rationale, but seeing that this is a very borderline RfA, I believe the oppose votes needed a thorough examination. I hope this will shed some new light on the subject and that the crats will consider facts over numbers when closing this RfA. Biblio (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: No words of mine can attempt to properly describe many of the silly and out-right ludicrous reasons that I have read throughout the oppose votes on this RFA. It's sad to see how close to almost-perfection that we hold candidates for RFA these days, as well as how close to the fire that we put their feet if they're anything short of that. Let's start with the self-nomination: it's an option that's allowed, and it holds absolutely no reservation to me as far as it being a negative thing. Nominations to me only help candidates by having experienced editors endorse them, and the lack thereof shouldn't be used as a factor when deciding not to support a candidate. If there really is something wrong with self-nominations, then why even allow them in an RFA or have them in the first place? That's just ridiculous. I'll even go as far as saying that a self nomination is to his credit - after all, this is a request is it not? If someone wants to run for the user flag, I think it's completely fine for them to step up to the plate without help and just ask for them. The "hat collecting" rationales don't wash at all; I think it's awesome to see candidates stepping up to the plate who are enthusiastic and excited about the role (maybe just a tad overboard... okay), and we respond by calling them "hat collectors" who can't restrain themselves and then tell them they can't have something they've wanted simply because "they want it too badly"? Hat collectors are people who create WP:PERM requests on every option available who have absolutely no qualifications and are blatantly just making a request with absolutely no knowledge of what its use is for. Or people who create an RFA with an account that's one day old and with like 20 edits in their history... they solely want the flag for the purpose of having that user right as a "badge to wear" on their user page..... someone whose been here for two years and has worked hard to improve the project is in no ways a "hat collector". Regarding the primary concerns for opposition here: the issue with the "forum shopping". I think that his response to BU Rob13 demonstrates a logical reason behind what happened, and it's a mistake any person could make. He only saw four support votes in one discussion, was asked about it later after it was closed, and he made another one. Big fucking deal. I see no red flags in his contributions that show that he's a SPA account, or someone who may have a COI on the topic, or a blatant POV-pusher... you know... the people who typically do engage in forum shopping... with the intent on trying to get their way and using Wikipedia's different processes to seek the answer they want instead of the consensus and discussion by the community about what's best. I honestly think that the issues and reasons for opposition that were brought up on my RFA were much more serious than the reasons that were brought up on this one, yet he's on the verge of an unsuccessful close right now. If these issues are determined by the community to be serious enough to disqualify this candidate for promotion, then why in the hell did mine pass? If anything... my RFA should have had this percentage of oppose votes and mine should have been closed as unsuccessful... and this RFA should pass. I honestly don't understand this at all. Why do we allow one-time issues in one's past like this to outweigh the contributions this candidate makes to the community? And why would they make this candidate not a net positive for the role? :-(  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - For a moment I was considering doing an vote by vote refutation of the oppose section. I won't because that would take far to long and not every oppose it meritless - though I think that a majority of oppose votes are on such flimsy foundations as to be discreditable. That said, I will discredit a few. First, Self-nomination is perfectly acceptable, if the only concern you have, if that's the best reason you can bring to the table why somebody should not have the admin tools, then you maybe you should reconsider your expectations. Self-nom's and Co-nom's are both acceptable. If they weren't we wouldn't have the option to do so. Second, [insert number here] of years experience required votes, each person learns at a differnt rate, it may take one year, 5 years, or 10 years, to gain the experience required and/or expected of administrators. If you're basing your votes on the number of years somebody has been here, then to me in essence what you're saying is, I haven't considered the candidate as a sole entity or looked at their contributions thoroughly enough, so I'll arbitrate capability by some false numerical measure of experience. Similarly, if you're trying to compare the candidate to current admins and their experience, you will never vote support because admins have experience that cannot be gained in any other way than being an admins - obviously does not apply to places where admins are expected to work, but, where admin tools are not necessarily required to work such as UAA, AIV, XfD or even clerking - but not acting - on unblock requests. I find the Legacypac resoning odd as well, this is given the fact that the overall outcome was against Legacypac's assertions and even comments in support of restrictions against Legacypac. How do we go from, Godsy's in the right here, to, Godsy has a battleground mentality and/or had it in for Legacypac. I mean, you can be right and BATTLEGROUND-y but I'm not seeing the correlation here. It makes no sense to me. Third, comments about hat collecting. Really? you want some sort of a resume, you receive said resume without asking for it, therefore this is an indication of hat collecting/power hunger. Fourth, WP:FORUMSHOP/WP:CONSENSUS complaints - baseless, four people do not equate to sitewide consensus and taking something to VPP to encourage greater consensus is not forumshopping. Lastly, and most annoyingly of all, assertions without any evidence. If you make comments about editors and how they do not have an understanding of "basic policies and behaviours" (or other things for that matter) then it's reasonable to expect some evidence of this and not some random assertion that it's true to be taken on good faith. I've seen at least one case where an editor has made such a comment, another has requested evidence or an explanation, and the voter has refused to oblige citing "you're an advocate for the candidate". What? where is the logic in this. I'm going to quote for a second here if they don't mind; I honestly think that the issues and reasons for opposition that were brought up on my RFA were much more serious than the reasons that were brought up on this one. I like it when people take a moment to self-reflect. Oshwah has so far, as far as I'm aware, only had mild trouble as an admin with one or two questionable blocks (out of 8,000+ if I recall correctly). While I haven't seen too much of Oshwah's adminning since their RfA, I also haven't seen anything that has been problematic, or indicative of an impending desysopping. I also agree with Oshwah, the opposes were fewer in percentage, but, greater in reasoning. I don't recall seeing more than a few questionable opposes all totaled up. Here, however, they are par for the course. If we're going to accept this level of discourse, then I don't see anybody other than beloved candidates with strong support from big admin names getting through RfA. Oshwah had MikeV and Katie, Samtar has ϢereSpielChequers and DatGuy, Godsy has put himself up all on his own. If anything that should garner some respect, not ridicule. That said, support voters rarely give much of a rationale either - and I forgot to mention this in my vote. It's rare for a support vote to be questioned for being vacuous, the last time I saw this happen was at another RfA where one support vote stated; Why not?. To repeat Cassianto's words; Well why would be a good start. Vacuity on one side may well just enable the same level of vacuity on the other. I think all voters - supporters and opposers - should think about this; Why do I support/oppose this candidate? Well, let me take a moment to do just that; Why Godsy should be an admin; a) they are willing to do the work. b) despite all this they are still willing to do the work. c) they demonstrate an understanding of CSD criteria and have an acceptable, even though not great, AfD record at 75% accuracy, - given RfD, MfD and CSD are the three main cited reasons to partipate I give particular attention to these aspects. d) I respect that you have the ability to recognize an action which might be controversial and thus your choice to request a second opinion via AfC before creating a potentially controversial article - this easily translates to administrative duties that may be considered controversial as well. e) while not a significant number, Godsy has contributed articles to the site and improved the encyclopaedia - something which some of our current admins/candidates don't have. Concerns that I do have; You edit and revert yourself quite regularly, this may not be a problem for normal editing but for doing any administrative task I would be concerned, for example, about quick blocks followed rapidly by unblocks. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I have been arguing with myself about this RFA for a long time, but ultimately I think I wind up here. Let me begin by saying that most of the oppose !votes seem, to put it bluntly, to be complete bunk. I have no issues with the self-nomination: if anything, it shows a certain gutsiness. Requiring 5 years tenure is ridiculous: I have less, and I was given the bit (and the folks who opposed me didn't cite tenure, either). Gody's content creation is not fantastic, but it's there, and inflated edit-count or not I don't really have issues with the articles. The concerns I do have are temperament related. I skimmed a fair quantity of the Legacypac/MfD kerfuffle. I find myself torn between two assessments. Godsy is either using an impressive knowledge of obscure guidelines to put a stop to far from ideal behavior; or, he is tossing around acronyms as a means of muddying the water and get his own way, which is evidence of a battleground mentality. Now to be honest I'm still not entirely sure which way this falls. But the candidate has a demonstrated need for the tools, so I'm willing to !vote support because they are likely to be a net positive. I sincerely hope they will take all the advice to heart, especially that of . Knowing policy details is well and good, but throwing abbreviations at newbies can be thoroughly discouraging. Also, there is more to solving a dispute than knowing the relevant policies: sometimes you have to IAR and apply common sense to cut through the crap, and like all of us, the candidate has more to learn in that area. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support to oppose the oppose votes for self-nomination. I checked this page Successful requests for adminship/2015, and I found that Requests for adminship/Cyclonebiskit 2, Requests for adminship/Wbm1058 and arbitrator Requests for adminship/Opabinia regalis 2 made self nomination along with another arbitrator's self-nomination Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare. And all of these RFAs were successful. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  07:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. I don't see any compelling reason to oppose, except possibly temperament, which I believe is outweighed by the positives. And we need more admins. I must say, I have never seen an RFA demonstrating such ridiculous rationales to oppose. Self-nom? 5 years? I self-nominated in spite of never desiring the mop, because an issue of The Signpost called me to take that action due to a shortage. Nothing wrong with self-nominating. And I didn't have 5 years under my belt then either. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support The arguments for support are significantly stronger than those for oppose. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support: Agreed, a net positive! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. I’ve watched this discussion progress for the last week, and have written three responses to this RfA: on support, one oppose and one neutral.  Editors/Admins I respect are on both sides in this discussion. I am not a fan of self-nominations, as it at least gives the appearance that the editor wants more "power" or "control", and therefore I question their motives. That said, unlike other editors a self-nom isn't deal-killer for me.  One thing I definitely do not like is the somewhat adversarial attitude taken by some of Godsy's advocates in the oppose section. While questioning is certainly encouraged, disparagement and condescension are not. While I may disagree with those who simply make comments like "I oppose all self-nominations" or "Five years is not enough for a new admin", those are valid opinions. They are no less evolved than "Net positive for the project" and "We need more admins". I would like to see more article creation. And more participation at both AfD and NPP.  But then, I don’t think every admin should be involved everywhere. I don’t do a lot at RfD, but what I checked out seemed reasonable and well-thought out. Much more important was the fear of a battleground mentality. I do see a slight tendency to be an advocate, rather than an editor. But I also see the maturity to back down from a position once consensus is reached. I completely understand the oppose rationales of, , , and . I also appreciate the thoughts on the positive side by  and . In particular, I tend to align with 's position most closely. Hence I finally climb down off the fence. Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 14:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your vote has given me something to think about. I've updated my own vote as a result of yours after some additional thought. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Strongly influenced by the support of other regulars at RfD who interact with Godsy the most. Looked through the incidents cited by opposers (namely Legacypac and English variant template) and found them to be far less damning than imagined. Content creation concerns don't sway me much, as the candidate has outlined areas where he has experience, hopes to contribute, and could use the tools to make those areas run more smoothly. Granting Godsy the mop will almost certainly be a net positive to the project. Ajpolino (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Spent a while mulling about this. The MOS discussion is too old for me to care about. The ANI discussion, far as I can gather under the salad of policies and guidelines and usual ANI dramamongering, seems to be about questionable page move practices by another user. While I am generally of the opinion that leaving old drafts sitting around forever is potentially risky (a surprising amount of such pages are copyright violations), I don't see many issues with Godsy's comments there. A number of the rationales offered in the oppose section are exceedingly poor and the complaining about the complaining about these rationales unseeming. Summa summarum, Yngvadottir's rationale (and I'll freely admit, Iridescent's) among others have convinced me to support. I recommend that Godsy take the advice given by Ritchie333 and some care about CSD and treatment of new editors, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Striking out !vote 'till an explanation is provided for the use of InfoWars as a source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Primarily per Oshwah, Jo-Jo Enmerus, Onel5959, Vanamonde93, and Mr rnddude. I am not convinced that there is a significant danger in the user's ability to use the admin toolset where they know how to use it. I do not expect them to take up an area where they have limited experience without first participating in a manner that does not require tool use. Couple pieces of advice: first, preview button is there for a reason you know . Second, when in doubt, step back, and let someone else take a crack at it. Best of luck, -- The Voidwalker  Whispers 18:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Normally I think RfA voters ought to make some effort to research the candidate's record for themselves: but here, it's been done so comprehensively by respected !voters on both sides that I'm comfortable relying on their comments and comments on the comments, and my conclusion is that Godsy should have the mop. Oh, here's some original research: on the multiple edits issue, Godsy does not always make 167 edits per page: the average edits per page figure is a more modest 3.1. How does this compare with some of those !voters who have made a point of this? - well has 1.7 edits per page,  2.3,  3.0,  6.3 <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>  (talk),  18:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These statistics are interesting, but I think the issue identified by the opposers has less to do with how many edits Godsy makes per page and more to do with how he sometimes makes a significant amount of edits trying to fix the exact same thing. There's a difference when you make 3.0 edits about the same thing and when you make 3.0 edits, each building more content on top of the other. I think this is one of the more valid opposing arguments, but Godsy strikes me as an editor who learns from feedback, so I don't think this will be enough to outweigh the positive work that he will take up as an administrator (e.g. at RfD). Mz7 (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it does put a ceiling on the extent of the problem: even if all Godsy's edits after the first to any page were corrections, amendments or reverts of the first effort, these would average out to no more than 2.1 per page <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  09:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think those stats are a little misleading, to be entirely honest. My own average is 2.4. When I'm writing content, my edit-count is a little above average: there are a very large number of pages I've made 20+ edits to. Then there's thousands of counter-vandalism edits, which are typically 1/page. So the overall average tells you not very much. Just sayin'. Vanamonde (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Just because it's a self-nom and we don't have enough Admin's running for RFA these days. Judging by the state of Wikipedia with the backlogs, we're not really in a position to be picky. Unless there's evidence this candidate will outright abuse the tools, I don't really see a reason to oppose. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This editor has done a lot of wikignomish work, creating redirects and disambiguation pages, but there are a few actual articles on subjects which are quite encyclopedic, interesting and useful, and properly referenced. I agree that better use should be made of "show changes" and "show preview" instead of saving prematurely then adding half a dozen quick followup edits as ce1, ce2, ce3, ce4, ce5, moved a word, etc. This means the edit could is somewhat misleadingly high. When doing admin work, please do not be so quick on the trigger, because the consequences are greater than adding and removing a word. I would like to see more work at AFD and CSD. All in all, Godsy seems a reasonable candidate for the mop. I am not troubled by the self-nomination. Edison (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Godsy and I ran into each other at a recent AfD about an article that he created and I supported delete. Godsy anticipated the trouble and never tried to avoid community input, indeed sought it - starting the article at AfC and respectfully taking part in the AfD and ongoing RfC. I might disagree with everything he ever does going forward, but the evidence to me is that he is engaged in the wikipedia process in a positive way and will continue to be. Honestly, though, I doubt I will disagree with very much he does. I acknowledge his questionable behavior, but do not think they preclude his ability to do well with the additional capabilities and responsibilities. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support No really problematic judgments, and sufficient experience. I think any temperament problems arecorrectable.  Two years is quite enough-- I had all of 8 months,and so did many other current active admins. . No one can possibly be prepared in all admin areas, and no admin works in all possible areas. I've never done countervandalism except incidentally, before or after become an admin, nor RfPP, nor any one of a few dozen other possible  things. Its enough to know the rules in the areas where you do work, and apply them properly. And I would active encourage self-noms--they should not betaken to indicate that one couldn't get anyone respectable to nominate. Put together all the requirements stated by the opposes, and we'd have no admins at all. Istrongly urge everyone who voted oppose here to reconsider, because the bulk ofthe opposes are precisely the sort of thing that discourages good people from applying.  DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - no significant concerns. Some of the oppose voters seem to have awfully high standards. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I don't view the self nomination as a liability. Quite the opposite. Read the questions asked of Godsy and the answers.  I'm comfortable giving Godsy my support. Cllgbksr (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - seems like a net positive for the project to have the tools. Ostrichyearning (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I see no reason to oppose. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Duplicate vote. -- The Voidwalker  Whispers 03:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support will probably be helpful as seen in question 1. Emily Goldstein (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Needs to counter the ridiculous opposition some have in regards to self-noms, questionable criteria and other poor rationales. I have seen plenty of ugly RfAs and problematic opposes, but this one sinks to a whole new level. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 03:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support We need more admins however we can get them; self-nom isn't an issue. Two years experience is just fine, Wikipedia isn't a convent. I like Godsy's style and support his elevation to become one of the illustrious Titans. LavaBaron (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a convent. D Absolutely! Lourdes  17:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support there are some issues, but he'd be a net positive to the project. We need more admins, let's give him the mop. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per above.  First of all, I really don't understand why self-nominating is a problem for so many !voters.  If someone wants to volunteer to do more work and understands how and when to use the admin tools, why should they need to get an endorsement from one of the "elect" prior to volunteering?  When I had my RfA back in 2010, I self-nominated in large part because I wanted the community to judge me by my own merits rather than the merits of my endorsers.  Second, if two years of experience is now WP:NOTNOW, we are going to run out of administrators sooner rather than later.  There's a difference between asking for an editor to have enough experience to demonstrate they are here in good faith, competent, and trustworthy, and coming up with an arbitrary target that just serves to exclude perfectly capable candidates.  Third, I reviewed the various diffs presented, especially regarding Legacypac, and don't see where Godsy did anything so wrong that he should be rejected for adminship.  I'm happy to provide my endorsement. –Grondemar 09:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  The user is sound at AfD, and I find the "but we will never support a self-nom"  opposes to be quite ill-suited here.  So part of this support is to get to the "discussion by bureaucrats" level at least. Collect (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) What we shouldn't forget is that we're voting for the candidate, not the nominators. If this is going to continue, I can see no light at the end of the tunnel. Hats off to the candidate for being bold, we definitely need admins like this. I don't usually vote for candidates I don't have prior interactions with, but if I don't vote here and the candidate fails, I'm really going to feel bad. Net positive! Regards— UY Scuti <sup style="color:green; font-family:Times;">Talk  15:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: I have been considering whether to !vote in this RfA.  There is much in the Oppose section that is unfortunate and it reflects poorly on some editors, but I can't support just to neutralise opposition.  There are a number of interesting comments offered on the conduct of the RfA, both here and on talk, and I do give serious weight to the position expressed by NYB.  The deciding factor for me, however, is that Godsy has handled this RfA well, and shown judgement and temperament which is suited to the admin role.  This RfA is a reminder both that the process can be very difficult, and that sometimes that allows character to show through.  EdChem (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I'll admit, this one made me think a bit. The vast majority of the opposes were, well, not great. I won't oppose based a numerical time or an edit count, or based on a self-nomination. This is Wikipedia, we're supposed to be bold here! As far as the more concrete opposes, they don't stand up very far either. Those opposes are mostly built around the Legacypac dispute, which I don't believe is worth denying adminship over. The arguments provided by NYB, Biblioworm, Oshwah, and Mr rnddude actually have solid reasoning behind them, and tipped me firmly into the support camp. What would an RFA !vote be without an edit confilct? -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 15:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per Opabinia regalis (also see her talk) and Wehwalt, and trusting Silk Tork's promise to advise for a year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support As is evident, I've reviewed almost all of Godsy's contributions, edit by edit – couldn't find anything else than what I wrote in my query. I'm okay with Godsy's reply to my query above. Better to have an admin who's reviewing his mistakes and undoing them than one who leaves a wake of errors. I hope Godsy provides evidence during his admin tenure of his temperament having improved, and makes an effort to stick to the admins-behave-best legend. Honestly, I've had my share of running across admins (but less than half a handful though) who are ready to slam their admin-imprint and past-positions-held footprint on any lesser experienced editor who questions their grasp and interpretation of policies and guidelines. At the same time, these are the very admins working absolutely hard towards improving Wikipedia on various fronts. So while I dislike their attitude, I completely appreciate their contributions. I honestly advise Godsy to choose to be a better admin in temperament too, rather than just be a net positive. Creditably, Godsy's attitude throughout this Rfa has been sparkling. I think he'll carry it off through the initial years of his adminship at least. Also, the self-nom thing. I'm surprised that if an experienced editor comes up to his fellow editors and says that he wishes to volunteer time to clean up the mess around, we tell him to go back and first get someone else to certify how well he can clean up the mess. I think editors should invest time to review the editor's contributions themselves and check whether the editor has the capability to contribute, rather than depend on a nominator's statements. Finally, I seriously hope the crats don't close this as did not succeed without having a chat. Of course, I'm all okay to no crat chat if this is being closed as an Rfa that succeeded. Thanks. Lourdes  17:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per thorough evaluation by Lourdes (above) DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I see no reason not to support this candidate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support No reason not to - I like the answer to question 2 - this project is about more than just great article content creators XyzSpaniel  Talk Page  21:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support as a tactical vote to force a 'crat chat. I still have concerns listed below, but I have no issue if consensus is towards a pass (that's consensus for you) and would rather the 'crats made a decision based on the weight of what everyone has said. It's easier to do that if it's within the previously agreed discretionary zone. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support there have been past issues, but given the support this candidate has, I'd class this as another tactical addition to get a 'crat chat to take place -- samtar talk or stalk 21:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support short !vote is support. Longer !vote is that the strength of various oppose and support positions run the whole gamut from sublime to ridiculous, but that's what it is to be human, I guess.  There are enough very good arguments on both sides that it has truly taken me a while to get to this position, but essentially I support per NewYorkBrad, Biblioworm and DGG.    Need for tools?  Absolutely.  CLUE?  Yup (although I will reference Cullen328's oppose in a bit).   Good answers to questions?  Sure.  Excellent deportment during this RfA?  Check.  Self-nom?  Not a problem for an editor with a lengthy edit history.  Temperament?  I'm not seeing the problem to nearly the same degree some of my betters are, but I cordially invite the candidate to do some self-examination, and I'll wager that if this RfA passes, some of the opposers would be happy to help in sticky situations.  Using really bad source on a controversial article?  Oops, but as was pointed out this was early in the editing history, it hasn't been demonstrated this is an ongoing problem, and it hasn't been demonstrated that the candidate reacted with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or any other disruptive editing stance, either past or present.  I've not seen solid evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND or POV editing, despite several claims of such behavior.  So... all in all I think the candidate will make a good admin, and although very few have said anything other than Godsy is a NETPOSITIVE to the project, I think he will be a NETPOSITIVE as an admin.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 22:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, I wish I could be as certain as you are after reading this. Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  22:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Opposition failed to convince me that user would not be a WP:NETPOSITIVE. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per BU Rob13 and Opabinia regalis. Good answers to the questions above. A net positive to the project. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Without a serious lack of experience, I support adminship for anyone without good reasons not to, which I have not seen. KSF  T C 22:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Possibly too late to make any difference now, sadly, but I really do feel I need to offer a support here. I do see some weaknesses, but I don't see enough to make me think Godsy would not make a good admin, and I see someone who I think would be careful with the tools and would seek and listen to advice from more experienced admins when necessary. I must also add that some of the opposes I see here are among the dumbest I've ever seen, and reinforce the oft-made claim that the biggest problem with RFA is the incompetence of some of those taking part. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: I come on this evening and see that I will be support 130. I have been observing this candidacy all week and at this point to cast my lot in with the negatives would feel fake. I echo User 78.26 who says Godsy has held excellent deportment during this arduous process. In my final weighing, I always hold temperament and stability above all else in a candidate. Next, my number one trusted admin Ritchie333, is hoping for a 'crat chat. So is Samtar, I see. I am going to stand on WP:NETPOSITIVE and throw my support in.  All the best to Godsy and here's hoping soon to be seeing you with the mantle of adminship and the tools, which you do deserve.  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 22:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support—based on the reasoning of editors I respect for analytical ability and patience, and some examination of my own. This candidate has the ability and experience to improve Wikipedia using the tools of an admin. — Neonorange (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak-ish support (leaning support) I believe this user will be a good admin, and I trust that SilkTork, who volunteered to mentor them for the next year, will do a good job. However, I do recommend that Godsy also get some experience with our more advanced anti-vandalism tools (for example, Huggle) that we ("we" being anti-vandalism fighters) use.  —  Gestrid  ( talk ) 00:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, as a solid net positive. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, After reading, reflecting and vacillating I have decided to move to the support camp because I see the candidate now as an overall net-positive. The honorable way they have performed during this RfA made me revisit his most critical contributions and engagements. I still prefer an administrator with more content experience, and one less contentious. The first point is a predilection and not a requirement. And in regard to the second, I see a chronological progress in the area of personal relations.  Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  02:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per and  seems like a hard worker, he's willing to put in the work and is a net positive to the project. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) I find the opposing points wholly unpersuasive and am convinced that Godsy will do an overall good job. Kurtis (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Is the expectation here perfection? I don't usually vote on these, but I find this person to be articulate and open.  II  | (t - c) 04:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - for no apparent reason.-- Stemoc 05:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose
As to the self-nom issue, while there is nothing inherently bad about it, I believe that in the current RfA climate, it shows poor judgment or inexperience in persuasive writing to fail to obtain one or more nominating statements. As I've said before, the RfA is likely our last chance to evaluate a candidate's demeanor and professionalism. Given the admin corps often are the public face of the Wiki, a candidate's approach should show a depth of critical thinking, self-evaluation, and persuasive writing that one should expect from an applicant for a public-facing job. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) As a matter of personal policy, I oppose all self-nominations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Tazerdadog (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular rationale behind this personal policy, or is it merely arbitrary? Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a method to my madness. This is a pretty small community.  Anyone who wants to become an admin who has the necessary goods should have no trouble in finding a sponsor to nominate them. The reputation of the nominator(s) is something of a fail-safe, and, indeed, the reputation of the nominator(s) often plays a part in support votes.  I myself have voted "support" for someone I was slightly unsure of, and my vote was based on the word and reputation of the nom(s), so I don't see why that should be acceptable but this would raise eyebrows.  In any case, well, I'm not asking anyone else to follow it, it's my personal policy, and that's the end of it. (Sorry, Brad, I respect you immensely, but this is far from "ridiculous".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining, even if I don't share your concern in this instance. =) Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 03:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to the talk page. Way too much of a controversial vote, will keep attracting comments that will derail the entire effort. In any case, crats use their discretion on which votes to disregard and which to not. <span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK  ( T  &#9749;  C ) 19:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Too incautious and get-my-way, for my comfort level. I'm often in agreement with Godsy, who does useful internal work like informally clerking at some XfDs, in addition to content work, and who often says intelligent and insightful things about how WP works at the content-policy level (e.g., his post in this thread and many like it elsewhere, frequently at WP:VPPOL.  However, some incidents give me pause, because they indicate a reckless my-way-or-the-highway approach. See, for example,  this discussion, about Godsy usurping a guideline shortcut, without discussion, to point to a proposal.  As another example, he derailed an already-concluded RfC the outcome of which he didn't like by forum-shopping it to another venue, badly misrepresenting the nature, intent, and outcome of the original discussion, and in turn thwarting further pending template cleanup work (see discussion here versus the original here). Due to Godsy's water-muddying and sabre-rattling, the problems remain unresolved still, to this very month .  Among his explicit rationales for this "asking the other parent" move were that the original discussion had closed and he didn't get to participate, and because he wanted to prevent a related pending discussion (at TfD) from proceeding. I cannot honestly distinguish this behavior from "this must be discussed with my people on my turf". And it was over a matter in which Godsy has no history of involvement to begin with (as far as I can find, anyway), and about which he was clearly confused.  Sorry, but this does not inspire admin-level confidence. It is not Godsy's job to relitigate decisions he doesn't like by mischaracterizing them and trying to round up more opponents of the result (especially when further discussion, at the appropriate venue, was already scheduled).  Nor is it Godsy's job to drive traffic to proposals by misdirecting people away from WP:P&G pages. The breadth of the judgement lapses is impressive (in the negative sense).  While I don't have some kind of "personal policy" against self-noms, I have to wonder how any candidate for RfA could possibly be unaware that many respondents here take a dim view of both self-nomination and (even more so) of stressing how many hats one has collected. It shows a lack of wisdom, in particular "community politics" understanding; it would have been very easy to ask someone to nominate and to avoid dwelling on one's user-right bits.  Mostly I'm impressed by what Godsy has done in two short years, as an editor, but he's just not there yet, as an admin-hopeful.  He does have a more chill temperament than many candidates (and than me). But I would like to see a more moderate approach between these "I'll just randomly do something without thinking through its effects" and "I'm going to mire this in bureaucracy until I get what I want" opposite-extreme failures to properly internalize WP:Process is important, that I highlighted in my examples. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)  Followup: As the Q&A section has expanded, too many of the answers seem to me to be roundabout ways of just saying "That's how I roll." They're mostly not very substantive, aside from a couple of technical ones. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to the talk page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I think my main hesitation is that the candidate, by and large, doesn't seem to be involved in counter-vandalism. And while I could be fine with that, I think participation in AIV and RfPP - and strong participation in CSD - are especially important when CSD and RfPP are listed as areas they intend to work in. I appreciate the candidate's caution in Q1 toward approaching these areas. However, seeing too many editors - even admins - failing to exercise proper correct knowledge of CSD in practice makes me hesitant to support a candidate who will work in CSD when I haven't seen enough evidence to be convinced they have that knowledge. I also looked through their created articles and was pleased with what I saw, but as I've said in other RfA's, I would also like to see a little more work in content creation. I'm satisfied by the answer to Q4 and I'm not concerned about the self-nomination, but I would like to see more work in CSD, a little exposure in AIV or RfPP, and continued work in AfD (and I did see that the candidate does make good arguments there) before I could support.--Slon02 (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I'm not impressed by Godsy's feud with Legacypac which ended only after Legacypac's block (without a return). They were easily provoked.--v/r - TP 06:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding that WBM's example of Talk:Gun_show_loophole/GA1 also troubles me. Godsy has shown a pattern of being disruptive to follow the letter of policy and ignoring consensus when it opposes their interpretation.--v/r - TP 03:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - some well thought-out opposes from editors I respect + only 2 years of editing = too soon for me, sorry. GiantSnowman 09:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SMcCandlish. I personally have no issue with the self-nomination, but I do have an issue with his history of battleground behaviour.Patient Zerotalk 10:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Moving to neutral per Oshwah's support, in a way; he is spot on, but I still feel unable to support due to temperament issues. I am therefore effectively abstaining. Patient Zerotalk 15:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I hardly ever vote oppose in an RfA but now I feel I have to for a number of reasons: 1) I think, in this case, two years of editing isn't enough. 2) The answer to Q4. Instead of reassuring Lourdes, Godsy starts defending his diffs at great length and then answers the main (and far more important) question with not much more than "I take extra care". 3) SMcCandlish's arguments above. 4) Looking at the edit history I find Godsy a bit too 'trigger happy' to be an admin. Too many self-reverts, too many edits to edits to already saved messages, too much slapping on of templates without even starting to fix the problem that caused the need for the template in the first place. Fine for an editor but not for a wanna-be admin. Sorry.  Yinta n  12:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Reading the answers here they seem more of a BATTLEGROUND mentality if that makes sense ... They all just seem extremely defensive, Anyway that aside they've not participated in AIV/UFAA nor AFDs (They participate in RFD which is great but I prefer editors to work in AFD too), I'll be completely honest I'm not really seeing any need for the tools right now. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - for all the reasons stated above, especially those presented by SMcCandish. Godsy's answer to Lourdes' first question concerns me, especially the part where they removed a template to test something; we all know that mainspace isn't the place to test things, even if you intend to self-revert, which is why I do as much of my testing as possible in a sandbox. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose The candidate borderline fails my criteria. While they constructed some well-thought answers to questions, the answers themselves are less than satisfactory. I'm confident that Godsy can fail this RfA and learn some lessons and pass in five years. I'm just not convinced they ought to be an admin now. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) *Five years?!? No wonder we have an admin shortage with these ridiculous criteria. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) **Agreed. Five years is kind of a high bar to set just to be able to run for RFA. Steel1943  (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) ***Even I was thinking something like 12–18 months. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. I am concerned about the self-nomination and I would like to see more work in CSD before I would feel comfortable with this candidate. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the self nomination and bypassing of the poll is not in itself a problem, except that by not getting a second pair of eyes on your answers, it meant I had to go through a sentence full of politican-talk before I got to the substance of what you wanted the tools for. However, it shows you have initiative and determination to get things done, which I like. The disputes with Legacypac are troublesome, but that could well be six of one and half a dozen of the other as I think I've had to tell Legacypac off at one point myself. Unfortunately the deal breaker is the answer to Q9, and what really bothers me is the candidate didn't seem to consider searching through existing articles (where 7 currently mention the topic) and then try a Google search which brings up reasonable sources such as this and this. I don't really mind what the answer is to this question too much (anything from "expand and nominate at DYK" to "start an AfD" would do, provided a suitable justification is given for it), except that I need to have some understanding on how we evaluate sources and use them to write prose. The deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" and I wanted to see evidence the candidate understood this. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case, so I can't support at this time. Sorry. (note, I have struck this oppose because I believe the opinions in it are more important, and as it stands I would prefer a 'crat chat to assess the weight of views. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * IMHO, "search for and add a source myself" and "inclined to add links if appropriate" means that the user is intending to Google the article subject and look at existing articles for possible wikilinks during examination of the page. Godsy's answer to Q9 goes above and beyond what many (or even most) participants at NPP would do. Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well personally I love turning down a CSD A7 and expanding it to DYK (examples here) but if time is tight, a quick google for a marginal topic (which takes 10 seconds) is usually enough to tip the balance between "decline A7, try PROD / AfD" and hitting the delete button. It's not a perfect science, just a heuristic. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per the other comments above. Five years is not enough for a new admin. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 17:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Um ... five years is not enough time? What percentage of current administrators do you think edited for five years before passing RfA? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to hope this !vote is parody. If it isn't, it is quite literally a !vote for the end of the project as we know it, as we simply can not operate using only admins with five years on the project. That's not sustainable in the long-term as our old-timey admins burn out or move onto other things. There would have to be major changes to how the project operates to make such a criteria feasible. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly, silly oppose votes like this bring the whole RfA process into disrepute, particularly when some of us try and give reasonable and constructive criticism. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It ought to be apparent that Ktruckergirl is taking cues from other more experienced editors, see Chris Troutman's vote above for the origin of the new five year requirement. Id point to Kudpungs guide for RfA here and say never vote solely on the basis of what someone else has said. Think it through for yourself and make up your own mind. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have a question for . You supported Widr (5 years on project), Anarchyte (1 year on project), and Vanamonde93 (3 years on project) within the past year. Where is this new criteria coming from? Of the three you supported at odds with your above criteria, Widr and Vanamonde93's RfAs succeeded. Do you believe they haven't been net positives with the mop? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, they meet the content creation criteria they meet. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 12:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Widr was not really a content creator though? More of a WikiGnome, pardon the label. Patient Zerotalk 12:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, forgive me if I am wrong here, but I am slightly concerned about your command of English. Your paraphrasing of a ridiculous oppose !vote says it all. Secondly, your signature says "what I'm been doing". (Just so you know: it's "I've".) Finally, I think I corrected something on your userpage a little while ago that didn't make any sense. I respect that you may find spelling difficult from time to time (I've seen your user page), but this goes a little bit further than just the odd spelling error in my view. Patient Zerotalk 12:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A friendly reminder not to jump to conclusions, Patient Zero. Reading and writing are two very different things. I, for example, can read and understand French without too many problems. Writing it however....  Yinta n  13:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, . My apologies for being jumpy. I was just rather concerned. By the way: Je parle français aussi! Patient Zerotalk 13:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason why I said five years is not enough because this user has a history of battleground behavior. So, I recommend whatever year intake is free of behavioral issues. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 06:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So you've backed off considerably from "five years isn't even enough" to "well, whenever he's no longer having battleground behavior". But it's unclear what you think is battleground behavior beyond the fact that others use the term elsewhere in this section. If you're referring to the SMcCandlish incident, that happened in August 2015, when Godsy was quite new to the project. It's been over a year, so if you're waiting until he has a year without much conflict this is the year that fits that bill. If you're referring to the Legacypac incident, you'll have to be rather specific about what you object to. Legacypac's behavior was demonstrably rejected by the community, whereas Godsy's challenge of out-of-process deletions was brought up at ANI by Legacypac and the community didn't seem to have any problem with it. He went through the proper venues to challenge problematic behavior by another editor, and his conduct in the Legacypac situation actually sets my mind well at ease about the SMcCandlish incident, which I had more of an issue with before realizing how long ago it was. So if your criteria has now changed to "when they're no longer getting into inappropriate conflicts", can you clarify why you believe we aren't already there? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, because most of them don't have behavioral issues probably. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I've been doing 17:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: I rarely vote in these, but I have to oppose this one. I have concerns about Godsy's understanding of some of our basic policies and behaviors. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? What policies and behaviors do you think Godsy does not have a good understanding of? Could you provide examples of Godsy failing to understand something or a time when Godsy displayed poor behavior? -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand you support Godsy and you have clearly decided to become an advocate for them. But no, I'm not going to be cross-examined by you on my opinion. I've stated my concerns. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect, I wouldn't really call it a cross examination more than I would call it a desire to understand your opinion. You've stated your concerns, but you haven't quite substantiated them. This is supposed to be a "!vote" (pronounced "not-vote"), and consensus is decided based on evidence. Mz7 (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC) (Addendum: I would note, however, that the same issues appear with support !votes. Mz7 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC))
 * I actually don't have to substantiate my vote to your satisfaction. RfA's actually are a vote. This isn't AfD, where I need to cite a specific policy or guideline. I don't intend to rehash issues I've observed with Godsy's behavior. Others already have given examples. If I were the only person talking about behavior, I could see this insistence on examples, but when so many are already mentioning it..... Niteshift36 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite your claim, RfA's are not a vote. See WP:RFA. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your conduct is exactly the reason I tend to avoid these. And I'm not some new editor with a few dozen edits, but you act like I have to justify something to you. I don't. I gave my opinion. I said why I opposed it. That's sufficient. I don't need to dig out diffs to justify anything to you. You're just another editor. Stop acting like you're running the show. Sorry I don't support your client. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do, and in in most RfAs not just this one. Very few supporters are ever asked to clarify their empty "yes, me too" votes (and there are usually many of them). Also, RfA  a vote (an election); a candidate has to receive a certain supermajority threshold. That's a vote by definition, even if 'Crats have a bit of wiggle room for their own judgement if it's close, kind of like an electoral college of sorts. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is getting off topic, so I'll be brief. I wonder if there is a tendency at RfA to assign a "burden of proof" to the opposition, and if such a tendency exists, whether it is justified. Something to think about for the RfA reformers out there. Mz7 (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a reason I asked. I recognized your name, Niteshift36, from Godsy's talk page. Back in May, you gave Godsy a cookie from a discussion the two of you had over Johann Fust Community Library. From the discussion, it seems you two disagreed on the usage of a few sources and section headings within the article. From my standpoint, it looks like both of you came to an amicable compromise and I didn't see any behavioral or policy-based misunderstanding from Godsy. I was curious if that discussion was the root of your opposition of Godsy, and if so, if you could offer your side of the story. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You've clearly become an advocate for Godsy, so making it sound like "I was curious" is a little misleading. The fact that you took it on yourself to try to research it shows there's more than idle curiosity involved. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose the user is new, unexperienced, easily provoked and willing to bypass policies to get things done his way. Fbergo (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: Many of this user's edits consist of several small changes to the same page, many of which are several edits over very short periods of time (often 4-5 in less than a minute). This is true even on pages he creates. In Adam's ale, for example, 167 of out of less than 200 total are his edits and most of those were made in multiple small, rapid fire edit that is clearly his editing style. To me, that implies his edits are more impulsive response rather than a planned (i.e., well-thought out) intent. It also implies either a trial and error editing method, or an outright disdain for the show preview button. These are predominant traits I'm not comfortable in supporting for an administrator role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMJKWhite (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder, how many editors think in this way? Having multiple edits in an article could indicate to me a type of writing style and/or technical circumstances rather than a sinister motive. I often begin a new entry with the bulk of the content already written in a word processor. Still, I will always go back to it multiple times to correct it, expand it, and categorize it. At other times I begin a badly needed article with whatever I have at my disposal out of fear that delaying the project would sentence it to oblivion. On these occasions, multiple returns is fate.
 * I have noticed that with the advent of new writing technologies, writing has become for many a thinking process rather than the culmination of it. And this means repeated struggles with the text and the inevitable traversing back and forth between the sources and the article. Would repeated travels to an entry become criteria for judging legitimate content creation? Though my concern here relates to the candidate, I am more anxious about the impact these comments may have in the way we look at people's content contribution in the future. Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  21:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The nominator recently created grease fire. This is a common safety hazard and this page now appears on the first page of google hits for the topic.  The article is not yet very good but we should really have WP:MEDRS quality work for a topic as important as this.  If you're going to tackle a topic like this, you should stick at it until it's not going to get someone killed.  Admins need to have a good appreciation of such issues. Andrew D. (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WTF? You're opposing because the candidate created an article about a notable subject with references, because you think the subject is dangerous? I'm guessing you would have supported an outright ban on the creator of the Adolf Hitler and Ku Klux Klan articles? Editing Wikipedia is kind of what we're here for. What are you here for? Ribbet32 (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That's the most useless and off-base oppose I've ever seen. It will, obviously, be completely disregarded in assessing the outcome by the 'Crats. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're !voting oppose because the candidate created an stub-class article on a dangerous topic that Google's algorithm put on the first page? How is it the candidates fault if, as you say, reading the article "gets someone killed"? That's why we have the risk disclaimer. Joshualouie711 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The disclaimer is not a free pass to write poor content. We regularly chide editors who contribute weak or misleading content on BLP or medical matters.  This issue of fire safety is of comparable importance – hundreds of people are killed each year by these common incidents.  I expect an admin to be able to write content of better quality and to have the commonsense to understand when this is expected.  A flip attitude like close enough for government work is a reason to think that the candidate still has room for improvement and so is not ready for promotion. Andrew D. (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * With no opinion on this particular vote, I went ahead and removed the advice. Diff before change. Esquivalience (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose; Ahh, I'm torn on how I should vote, but I'm leaning towards oppose. He has a lot of experience, but I find the lack of image uploads weird. I also dislike the fact that he is only active in two WikiProjects. I'd definitely trust you with rollback tools, but I think that you're *this* close to acquiring the tools. I wouldn't say you're there just yet. Sorry! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to the talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Based on his edits, and the edits of other admins, I do not believe that he is qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catmando999 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Slon02, TParis, and Davey2010. The incident with Legacypac concerns me. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose primarily due to question #4. Concerns about lack of experience in CSD and counter-vandalism also lead me to believe that the user has insufficient experience to have access to advanced functions. &mdash; Music1201  talk  00:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose (quite strongly, actually). While there are indeed some very dubious oppose votes here and I’ve absolutely nothing against self-noms from clearly well established editors, I firmly do not believe that Godsy has the right temperament for adminship, although their keen interest in the way Wikipedia is run is to be welcomed.   has echoed exactly the thoughts I had when I was about to vote here but was called away to something else.  also makes some very salient points.  highlights an issue with multiple edits which I had already identified in Godsy’s participation in RfCs where he doesn’t seem to be able to make his mind up or get his post correct - this sometimes approaches nearly a hundred small edits. Only a very in-depth research of his entire history would reveal how much this issue accounts for his edit count and if it really is problematic but it is a sufficient additional reason to give me further pause concerning his bid for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose: I recall Godsy from the MfD/STALEDRAFT kerfuffle earlier this year (which itself is related to the Legacypac issue). While I don't believe Godsy's conduct in that dispute and its affiliated ANI threads went beyond what all involved (myself included) should agree was generally unimpressive conduct, I have now looked back upon what became of the other participants after I walked away from that dispute. I am disturbed by Godsy's interactions with Legacypac. While I do not consider this permanently disqualifying, I think it might have been a better idea to wait until sometime next year to seek the mop.
 * 1) Weak Oppose: There are a few reasons for my voting this way. First off, his interactions with Legacypac aren't the best. Second off, I am kind of concerned about him, and the fact that he is self-nominated worries me. While there is nothing really wrong with self nomination, I think that it is suspect in his case. Third, I am worried, based on what I have seen, about what his conduct with new users would be as an admin. Also, I think that he needs to get a bit better at answering questions, which seems to be a large part of being an admin. Fourth, his testing of a template on the mainspace. RileyBugz (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: I have multiple concerns with this user, first off I do not find the self-nomination very convincing nor the answers to the questions, second he is still fairly new and inexperienced, I'm not saying he need 5 years of experience but more time and experience will help overall, his editing patterns are what I have the most problem with. As KMJKWhite pointed out, most of his edits are small minor edits even on the same pages correcting and self reverting himself multiple times in a short amount of time, while I do this occasionally Godsy seems to do this on a regular basis.  Jay  Jay What did I do? 17:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Sorry, I've been looking for a reason to support, as this is a very marginal RFA, but some very weak answers to the questions does not inspire me with confidence. In particular, I was expecting a potential admin to know about the importance of protecting images before adding them to the main page - Godsy did not mention that. I've no problem with the reluctance to handle that area, but the background knowledge should still be there. What swung my decision to oppose, however, were recent edits such as this file name change request, (also,  and ), where the template has been left incomplete. This is too much of an oversight for me to let it pass. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an oversight, I intentionally left those incomplete (i.e. without a suggested name), which is allowed (see Template:Rename media). They populate Category:Incomplete file renaming requests. The current file names are inappropriate (File names). Some of the twenty or so images I added that template to are different pictures of the same structures, and I didn't have the time to sort out the distinctions and name them harmoniously. I can move them myself as a file mover, and I plan to sort it out after the conclusion of this RfA, unless another user with the ability to do so gets to it first. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 18:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose As many above have mentioned, not quite there yet. Intothatdarkness 18:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose at this time. Presently I share the hesitation about incaution mentioned by others. I asked about the Jenner talk page because caution when operating around a harm question, including a mindfulness that talk pages are public-facing, is the sort of thing I consider very important in an admin candidate. That said I was really glad to see that Godsy chose to send the racial slur entry through AfC to get more opinion before publishing; it was a very thoughtful choice and I think that going forward with a similar emphasis on caution could definitely assuage my concerns for a subsequent RfA. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Godsy's persistent and pointless stalking of me while I was working on a backlog of old abandoned drafts was a major factor in driving me out of editing. On a number of occasions he took multiple avenues to reverse actions for absolutely no good reason. He appears to enjoy twisting Wikipedia policy in ways that defy explanation. If granted Adminship I fully expect him to use the mop as a club against his enemies. Legacypac (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose While some of these opposes are indeed nonsense (or perhaps simply "beyond my ken"), others are quite sensible, including those of SMcCandlish, TParis, Yintan, and others. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) The candidate has sufficient experience, although their edit count seems to be quite inflated: Adam's ale took too many (167) edits to expand it to this state (even though some content was split). However, the candidate's judgement is insufficient for adminship. The candidate displays their user rights too prominently in their nomination. Grease fire, an article that the candidate expanded, is written with an instructive rather than encyclopedic tone, which does not bolster my confidence with the candidate. Esquivalience (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. I do not believe that someone with a feuding and battleground mentality (even if perhaps restricted to certain areas or editors) should be given the tools. I also feel there is insufficient experience overall. But my main point is my first one. Softlavender (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per above. Concerns with temperament -  F ASTILY   04:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. I have no problem with the self-nomination, and getting tools isn't always hat collecting. However there's the Legacypac matter and this seems like an odd move (although it probably looks odder from this point in time, and Godsy seemed to understand when it was pointed out). I see the same problem described above as temperament/mentality/tone. Maybe that's what other people are expressing as two years' being not long enough; it would help if the rough edges were smoother. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Self-nomination is fine. But admins have to restrain themselves, and I do not think Godsy has the ability to do that to the extent required. Katietalk 13:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you mind clarifying if you're referring to a specific incident? Your opinion is highly respected by myself and others, so that information may be helpful to other !voters, not to mention the bureaucrats in the likely 'crat chat. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. The whole Legacypac thing was unnecessary and a user with the temperament to be an administrator should have stopped way, way before an RFC was finally formulated. And this is key – after the RFC started, Godsy kept engaging Legacypac instead of making his arguments at the RFC itself. I was one of the closers of WP:UP/RFC2016 and Godsy made exactly three comments. Secondarily, I don't like the hundreds of tiny edits on one subject or page. It seems to indicate he either can't make up his mind before he hits 'save changes' or that he's too impulsive to stop himself. How is that going to affect deletion decisions? Is he going to delete the page, then change his mind? Then change it back? Decline a CSD, then decide to delete anyway? Block a vandal (and I don't recall a lot of AIV experience, though he wants to work there), then unblock? He's too quick to judgment, and that's the last thing we need in the admin corps. That might change with time and experience, and I certainly hope it does, but right now I cannot support. Katietalk 00:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Moving to support. You can read my previous rationale here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: It is pretty rare for me to !vote oppose rather than to stay neutral with a candidate that I'm not sure about, and perhaps in time this nominee could try again and I'd support, but right now, I am not comfortable granting the mop.  I echo some of the temperament concerns expressed above, such as those of Softlavender and KrakatoaKatie.  I am also concerned with insufficient major content editing experience. I'm not comfortable with the nominee's multiple small edit approach, which does smack of inflating an edit count as opposed to just having a bad day with typos.  I do have issues with a too-quick to delete philosophy as well;  it is better to see if the article can be improved and if the topic is appropriate.  WP:HEY is far better than deletion.  I understand that this editor works at RFD, which is a neglected area, but the answers above suggest a general philosophy that is problematic. While a self-nom is not disqualifying, I find it strange, and particularly the rationale given; experienced admins do not get hurt feelings if they don't get asked to be a nominator, to be nominated is usually an indication that the nominee has been screened to some degree by others and has passed muster. The lack of support in the form of enthusiastic nominators is a concern.   Montanabw (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A most unexpected oppose, as you normally come across as deeply perceptive. Godsy is no deletionist, he's one of the rare few who seem to have become more inclusionist as he grows in experience. Check out his AfD Stats . And note that in 2016, his few delete noms are just procedural, where he's even voted keep against himself. Am I missing something? Would be interested, let me know. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Concerned with self nomination. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I have a few concerns. First is that he has not done much counter-vandalism work, which wouldn't normally be a disqualifier, but he says he wants to work in requests for page protection, which I think requires a certain level of familiarity with counter-vandalism and the related issues. Second, and possibly more importantly, is his answer to question #4. Rather than really addressing the issue, he defends his edits at some length, and basically says that he will try to be careful, which doesn't offer me much confidence in regards to that matter. Finally, I do see some history of mild battleground mentality, which is very concerning to me in an admin. Gluons12  ☢&#124;☕ 21:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC).
 * RFPP is far more than just vandalism; it covers disputes across the board, where good communication is required (eg: Talk:Spain/Archive 7) and protection can be a way of resolving a bitter and acrimonious dispute without having to block a WP:Unblockable. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I was supposed to reply here (if at all), but I figured if I'm going to !vote oppose I should give some justification. You are definitely right that RfPP is more than just vandalism, but a cursory look at RfPP at the time of this writing shows a little more than half as being for vandalism, so I still think that strong familiarity with counter-vandalism is a must for RfPP work. Hope that helps, Gluons12  ☢&#124;☕ 02:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC).
 * I had pretty much no vandalism experience when I ran for RfA, but I started work on RFPP as soon as I got the bit, and I would say the complaints are conspicuous by their absence - I think User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 31 is about as bad as it's got. So think on. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose A relatively inexperienced editor with a self nomination is a big red flag for me. Furthermore, as some of the other contributors have stated above, I'm appalled by the battleground mentality prevailing among some who support the nomination. Another red flag that does not bode well at least in my mind. --Hyperinsomniac (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Waaaait a minute. Hold the phone.  You're holding him responsible for the behavior of others?  I've never seen an RfA with as many arbitrary and capricious oppose votes in my career on Wp, but this one takes the cake.  --Drmargi (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting that this account was inactive since September before making this !vote, and has had only sporadic editing over the years before that. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 12:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting that I have the right as a Wikipedian to express my opinion here, regardless of my recent activity. --Hyperinsomniac (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, just as I have the right to express my personal opinion that has to ask multiple times for help clearing the perpetual backlog on WP:ERRORS because .... ooooh .... we don't have enough admins left who want to do it ..... (deep breaths, Ritchie, think of kittens......) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per SMcCandlish, Yintan and Gluons12. Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  13:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not amused at the dispute in the Legacypac scuffle.  Wiki Pancake  🥞 16:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Too impulsive for adminship. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 16:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose— this candidate has only created twenty‐three articles, ten of which where later deleted. I would like the candidate to show a better understanding of WP:Notability before supporting. only five article creations. I would like the candidate to create a few more articles before supporting. —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you actually look at the ten deleted "articles", you will notice almost all of them were redirects that Godsy decided against shortly after creating and self-nominated as WP:CSD. And unlike WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CSD is policy. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, at least my ping will draw their attention here quicker. So my comment wasn't entirely for nothing. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You should read things properly and more carefully. He hasn't created 23 articles at all - most of them are just redirects and of those redirects 10 have been deleted. Further, if you'd looked at the deletions, you'd know that they were G7 - author requested deletions - and G8 - pages redirecting to a no longer existing page, and one of them is an R3 (redirects only) for "implausible typo's". None of those have anything to do with notability. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought the redirects would be excluded from the "articles created list", as that is what usually happens. —MartinZ02 (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The software has no way of telling what kind of page was there before it was deleted. All that it can tell is that there was a deletion action, and that it was in mainspace, so it assumes it's an article. It's just a reason why people should look beyond simple statistics to determine their rationale. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose at this time. My encounters are with the ANI/Legacypac and the Caitlyn Jenner which have raised concerned, the former more so. I'm not opposed entirely, I am unconvinced, however, that we will not have a repeat of the ANI flood from earlier this year. Had more time passed since that incident and a demonstration of changed behavior was evidence, I'd likely support on the grounds that the user is competent and knowledgeable and would be helpful as an admin. But at this moment I cannot get other concerns raised.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - looking through the arguments above, Montanabw's pretty much captures my views. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, because he's only been around for two years and I see no AIV work... TJH2018 talk  21:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I didn't like the initial statement - "less than one thousand are automated" - as if such a small number was something to be proud of. Vandalism is always an issue here, and an admin needs to be able to regognise all types - not just the child sticking some swear word in the middle of an article, but the more sneaky vandalism that occurs, and can often be missed for some time (and sometimes until the subject writes in at OTRS!). I see just 3 Huggle edits (why just 3?). A month or two spent on Huggle would broaden the candidate's knowledge. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 00:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * At my own RFA I had many thousands of main space edits with hardly any automated, and I was a good vandal fighter before becoming an admin. I would view with suspicion any RFA involving a contribution history with a large proportion of automated edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't read Godsy's statement the same way. ~14k manual edits show commitment to the project, and ~1000 automated edits show he's at least roughly familiar with one non-manual package.  I read the statement as just an accurate summary of his edit count.  Huggle is not a requirement for adminship. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, too soon. Also, history of fighting. -- Kndimov (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The candidate has been editing for two years (exactly, as of today). Please refer to my comments on the talkpage, in which I explain that two years has never been considered too soon for an RfA, and that enforcement of such a requirement would seriously damage our ability to select the administrators we need. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is my vote, and I'm not changing it, thank you very much. At the end of the day, our votes are merely a suggestion for the bureaucrats, giving them lots of wiggle room. They may choose to ignore this vote if they want to. -- Kndimov (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for many reasons
 * 1.I am also concerned about paucity of article creation. I've been harangued by a few overzealous admins, but the ones who have been most understanding are the ones with sufficient article creation under their belts. Also, as others have noted, his gross intemperance with those who disagee with him, and inability to separate his apparent left-wing views with NPOV editing.
 * 2.There is a destiny that has the control of our actions, not to be resisted by the strongest efforts of human nature. Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. Wikipedians who edit for ideologically-oriented purposes overzealously are unfit for governance with the admin kit. They're labor to keep alive in that little spark of celestial fire called conscience. Truth is ultimately to prevail where there is pains to bring it to light. In this case, he will suffer the pain of losing an adminship, and won't be able to join the elite club of admins. However, it is far better to be alone than to be in bad company. Be courteous to all, but intimate with a few. After all, discipline is the soul of an army – it makes small numbers formidable (very necessary given relatively few active admins), procures success to the weak and esteem to all. If given admin tools I don't believe he would have discipline. Sorry if this sounds preachy, but I just wanted to fully explain, as opposed to a curt, one sentence oppose. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to talk page &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, too much doubt.  <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Nobody without significant content contributions can have any idea of what life is like here for regular editors. Eric   Corbett  14:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit unfair—he might not be particularly prolific, but with articles like Adam's ale from scratch he's not a mindless human-bot hybrid reverter-and-warner, either. I know you can't reply here—feel free to reply on my talk and I'll cut-and-paste it across. &#8209; Iridescent 15:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good point; I quite like the look of Adam's Ale too. It may be just bad luck that I happened across a more sensitive subject.  I'd encourage the candidate to do more work like this and try again in a year or so, after he's got more experience under his belt. Andrew D. (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I very rarely oppose RFAs, but I have to here, especially after reading Kudpung's statement. I went back and looked through Godsy's contributions myself, and I noticed the same thing with regard to the frequent corrections and recorrections. The thing about admin tools is that they give access to functions that are harder to undo, and it's less obvious to the community when that undoing might need to happen. That's kind of the point of limiting functions like delete and revdel to admins. I'm not convinced that we can trust Godsy to consider their administrative actions carefully enough before taking them, and that's deal-breaker for me. I do not endorse the other oppose !votes that take issue with Godsy's tenure or content creation. agt x  07:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As an administrator, I make mistakes, and I have had no problem un-doing them. I don't see being "harder to undo" as a reason for opposing. Anyone in the community has access to an administrator's logs. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, mistakes are fine. What's less fine is kneejerk use of the tools. Consider a speedy deletion for example. What I'm concerned we'd see with Godsy is a quick deletion, then an undeletion, then a deletion again with a different rationale. Or how about a close? If there's to be a substantive closing statement, it should be drafted ahead of time and posted, not edited on the fly. I think that doing that frequently is bad for the general legitimacy of admin actions. agt x  00:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately,, the comments made by are appropriate and relevant.  Administrator 'mistakes' go largely undetected (especially in admins who avoid the drama areas) and only surface  when someone realises there is a pattern and brings it to  attention. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose in reviewing the responses to questions and actions during the Legacypac threads, I do not believe Godsy is mature enough in temperament to take the mop. I also do not get the impression that Godsy understands the larger picture in his responses, and I think it is important that a wielder of the mop understands the context of their actions. Reviewing the Legacypac dispute, I feel Godsy could have been a lot more diplomatic, as in addition to strict policy enforcement I hope admins will see their role as supporting, rather than enforcing policy. I would recommend Godsy to renominate in a year, reflect on some of the comments here, and perhaps ask for an admin mentor prior to the next nomination. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose the editor seems to be very proud of achievements such as file-mover and page-mover rights; many of these were granted just half a year ago. This isn't a collectible card game. Somehow this fits well with aforementioned problems: many edits, but many of them very small and incremental, some disputes, and temperament. I'd suggest to just work with the rights he already has, and wait some more time to be nominated by someone else because of being good at diplomatic support when solving disputes... because admins do need to be good moderators. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a more specific concern about his use of his user rights beyond an arbitrary length of time? Six months strikes me as more than enough time to figure out whether he is using them to improve the encyclopedia or whether he is using them like collectible cards. Mz7 (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to add, 3 of the 4 rights he received this past year did not exist prior to the time he received them (extended confirmed, page mover, new page reviewer). In other words, no one had them before just half a year ago. Mz7 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per above. And also concerns about their impartiality. Mona778 (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Appears to be temperamentally unsuited. J3Mrs (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose It is fairly unusual for me to oppose nominees with over a years experience and upwards of 10k edits. That said I have some concerns. I'd like to see a little more activity in the adminny things like AfD and CSD. But I might be able to overlook that. My real problem is in the area of temperament. I don't want to belabor this point since others have raised it as well, but Godsy seems to have a rather thin skin and at times can be like a dog with a bone on some issues. Let's wait year or 18 months and see if things haven't improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Too many users here seem to have direct experience of the user's temperament for me to ignore. Samsara 16:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The only two situations that have given rise to all of these temperament opposes, as far as I can tell, are the Legacypac situation and the forum-shopping issue from when he was a newer editor. At least to me, it doesn't appear almost anyone here has direct experience with the user's temperament. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , to name one, gives quite a succinct description that sounds like it refers to a recent occurrence - or several. Samsara 18:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The concerns raised about Godsy's temperament concern me, especially since that can make a big difference in how effective of an administrator one is. (I originally voted Neutral due to my discomfort with piling on to what I consider to be many poorly considered oppose !votes; however, there have also been a number of support !votes specifically made to cancel out those opposes, and I feel the best I can do is express my own view and let the crats sort out the value of the other !votes.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 17:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, sadly. I don't have a negative impression of Godsy and in fact know that he/she does make a lot of positive contributions to the project. However, after looking through some of the concerns expressed above, I had assumed not weigh in, but I decided to do some looking for myself. I noticed in the xtools overview, Godsy has far more edits to Talk:Nazi gun control theory than any other talk page (#2 on the list has about a third as many edits). Obviously editing contentious articles doesn't have bearing on whether to support/oppose, but I do think that articles where there are tensions between positions/editors (and which are prone to problematic editing) are a good basis for evaluating how someone might deal with problems as an admin. So I started to look at Godsy's edits at Nazi gun control theory and immediately ran into bright red flags: this first edit to the page, with edit summary "WP:NPOV fixes, 1 citation tag added", was to remove the word "fringe" from "fringe theory", change the way its proponents are characterized, and add a weasel word ("The theory is not supported by mainstream historiography" &rarr; "The theory is not widely supported by mainstream historiography"). That edit was reverted. Then there were a couple minor edits to the lead and again rewriting the lead to remove "fringe", etc. the very next day. At the same time, he/she replaced several reliable sources (law journals, etc.) with clearly less reliable sources for this context: Info Wars, National Review, and a Tripod-hosted site. That's enough for me to oppose. Perhaps it was a good faith misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies on NPOV and fringe topics that has since been remedied, in which case I'd say this is just too soon. I hope to support next time around, as I do think that Godsy is a valuable contributor. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 19:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I have been undecided about this nomination, not comfortable enough to support and not concerned enough to oppose. However, what Rhododendrites linked to just above has motivated me to oppose. In April, 2015, Godsy tried to cite InfoWars,  the website of the extremist conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, as a reliable source on a controversial article.  That is so obviously not a reliable source that it creates great doubts about Godsy's judgement in my mind.  <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  20:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that is three months after Godsy first started editing actively. If we judged every editor who stood for RfA on what they did within the first few months of their tenure on the site, we would have about 5 admins. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want it to seem like I'm responding to Cullen, but since I brought up the edit you're referring to I'll take the opportunity. This is not a test edit, obvious vandalism, or otherwise a typical newbie mistake due to unfamiliarity with policies and guidelines. When these were made, Godsy was familiar enough with the relevant policies and guidelines to cite them regularly, including as basis for these very edits. I don't think it makes sense to dismiss it as a newbie mistake. Best case scenario it's overeagerness to jump into contentious situations and repeatedly make controversial changes without fully understanding the relevant policies -- which does not seem ideal for an admin. In any event, the content of these edits, even granting the assumption of an imperfect understanding of RS/FRINGE/NPOV at the time, involve decisions that exist outside of the wiki learning curve (e.g. "is a conspiracy theory website more reliable than a law journal, and will doing so make it more neutral", regardless of whether you're going by a Wikipedia jargon or dictionary definition of "neutral" and "reliable"). As I said, I'm happy to consider this a "too soon" (it may have been three months after starting to edit, but it was also just last year), and to consider a later RfA independently (in a year, say), but it's too recent to ignore at this point. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 20:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is definitely an important concern, but my thoughts align with Rob. Shortly after he added those questionable sources, he received the feedback of being reverted. Has he learned from that feedback or has he continued to exercise poor judgment despite that feedback? The former would be a quality I'd like to see in an administrator, the latter not so much. Mz7 (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC) But I would like to add also that I understand if you think this was too recent to determine whether he has learned from it or not. Mz7 (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The responses to my "oppose" are reasonable and I thank those who have commented. Yes, Mz7, I have concluded that the April, 2015 incident was recent enough, and the unacceptability of the source so egregious and so glaring that I am comfortable with my decision here. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I had been vacillating for the greater part of this RfA, and had been willing to give him the mop to prove that he has gone beyond the unseemly behaviour previously exhibited as mentioned by the opposes above. But per Rhododendrites, I'm no longer so sure that his competence is so sure. Dschslava  Δx  parlez moi  20:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per concerns of Rhododendrites and Cullen328; POV editing concerns. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 21:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose See my earlier comments in the neutral section. I have an uneasy feeling about Godsy's edits in Talk:Gun show loophole/GA1; I'd rather see him get more experience in writing his own content before he acts like an expert in evaluating other's efforts, and who was responsible for that copyvio? I haven't researched that. I've had this uneasy feeling about the possibility of POV editing, but kept in neutral until I saw the "smoking Nazi gun" reported by Rhododendrites. So that was a while ago, and he's learned, you say? I might agree if he didn't need a damn 30-day RfC that's wasting the time of a bunch of editors just to decide how to include some dictionary slang in our encyclopedia. wbm1058 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The copyvio text in gun show loophole appears to have been added in this edit by another editor (not Godsy). Ca2james (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose – per some of the other observations, this relatively new editor does not seem to have a great track record of admin-like behavior, or of reading and accepting consensus; and I'm a bit uncomfortable with self-nomination, too. Dicklyon (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose- Too many different potential issues to be trustworthy as an admin. If there was just one strong concern in opposition I'd be more hesitant to oppose.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Moral support, leaning support, but neutral for now. Similar to Tavix, I am familiar with Godsy since I am also a regular at RFD. For the most part, I am quite impressed with Godsy's contributions at RFD, including their incredible insight into nominations that have been listed there, my own included. However, with that being said, I have run across Godsy's editing a few times outside of RFD, including some edits regarding when the extended confirmed user right was implemented, and during that time, I somewhat questioned some of Godsy's edits during that time, including the RfD nomination of Wikipedia:30/500. In all honesty, even with what I have seen outside of RFD regarding Godsy, I'm pretty sure this RFA is going to pass, and I will honestly probably move this comment to Support eventually, but I'm just not there right now since That nomination alone has me thinking a bit about this. Steel1943  (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Moving to "support". Steel1943  (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ...And I'm back here after reading TParis' comment. I do recall the Legacypac "incident" that essentially resulted in an editor who was dedicated to clearing the WP:X1 backlog being temporarily blocked then never returning. Knowing of the nominator's part in that alone (which I did not consider when I moved my opinion to "support") prevents me from supporting, but cannot oppose since the editor is still a net positive. But, I'm just not a fan of events that happen that result in productive editors not coming back. Steel1943  (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: Yes, I am saying this while being aware of Legacypac's block log. Legacypac's hot-headed-ness got them in trouble sometimes, but at the end of the day, they wanted to help clear a backlog that needed clearing, and that is a positive ... Steel1943  (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Moving back to "Support". Steel1943  (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Steel1943, remind me to never ask you if you want tea or coffee, I'd be worried I'd get it wrong.... <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  00:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because I may end up asking for a soda or water.  Steel1943  (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ...And I'm back. Ivanvector just resonated the thoughts I've been having throughout this entire RFA. I can't put myself in the "oppose" section though since I've never even considered that, and still haven't. Steel1943  (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In regard to, "I am thus concerned about what damage could be done by a user with access to deletion who prefers semantics to readability, concerned enough to land myself in the oppose section on this one.", I have a short reply. If accorded the ability to delete pages, I would never do so unless their was community consensus for it (i.e. from a discussion at the appropriate deletion forum, through uncontroversial speedy deletion, or proposed deletion). I've been an outspoken critic of out of process deletions throughout my time here, but I apologize if I've ever given either of you cause for concern that I would misuse the administrator toolset in that manner. I deeply respect both of you, and thank you for your participation here. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 19:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * continued on talk page Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (Well, moved back to "support" again...) Steel1943  (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now. I'd like to see some better answers to some of the questions, especially #4. Godsy has created several redirects, only to request them deleted, sometimes immediately (e.g. US of A.), and I'd like some explanation for this. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Switching to oppose - sorry. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Once in a blue moon, I'll create a redirect by accident that isn't plausible, or I'll create one purposely and later decide that it isn't plausible. That is how hou know is a good example of the former, US of A. is a good example of the latter. I have a good grasp of whether or not a redirect is appropriate from my work at RfD, so if I create one that isn't, I request its deletion per G7. —  Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 23:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The history log for US of A. indicates that you created it at 22:37, 3 November 2015, and requested deletion at 22:38, 3 November 2015. This seems a very quick change of mind to decide it isn't "plausible", and I'd just like to know what your thinking was. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It was created along with U.S. of A. and U. S. of A.. I decided that leaving out some periods but including others was implausible and would have too many semi-equally plausible variations such as "U.S of A" etc. —  Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 12:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral for now (or rather, "abstain", really). I see this user mainly at WP:RFD, where I am a regular, and I've been alerted to this discussion by another RfD reg. I think it my duty to !vote rather than seem apathetic, but I don't really feel qualified to opine on Godsy's other activities, since it's not in areas I tend to edit or read. Si Trew (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the close nature of this RfA, I believed you may desire a ping in case you decide to exercise the "for now" aspect of your initial !vote. There are 21 hours left if you decide to express an opinion one way or the other. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral JustAGuyOnWikipedia (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm sitting neutral for now due to a number of reasons, and I'll explain. First of all, I am not bothered at all about self-nominations and RFA. Running around and tapping people on the shoulder for nominations is a political thing; to me, it only helps an RFA and the lack thereof is certainly not a fair and level-headed rationale to oppose an RFA right-out. However, a rationale that I'm seeing that is fair to use in an RFA vote are the discussions that SMcCandlish have brought up. I will look into these in-depth and go from there; indeed if there are concerns that are legitimate, it will sway my vote. Staying here for now until I read through the concerned discussions and make a decision.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you tend to be quite reasonable, I wanted to make sure that you were aware the issues that SMcCandlish cited are over 1.5 years old, from when Godsy was relatively new on the site (~7-8 months in). Do with that information what you will, but note that there are two days left to make a decision if you intend to make one. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * BU Rob13, 10-4. I got really busy this week with work. Plan on changing by vote tomorrow. Thanks for the reminder :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral/Abstain - I remain unswayed by either side and my own research hasn't pushed or pulled me either way either. Few in the opposition have brought up any concerns that would sway me, and supporters, as is usual, bring limited useful feedback to do the same. I am thus left to rely on the Q&A, Godsy's answers to some of the questions are fairly good, but, I have my reservations about some of their other answers too. All in all, I cannot support the candidate, but, ,I also don't have an acceptable reason to oppose. We'll see if this changes in the coming days. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I intended to abstain from this RfA at first, but, after commenting on so many poor oppose rationales I find that I really do belong in the support camp. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) *You seem to be something of a lightning rod, and the oppose section is noisy but filled with many weak arguments. You seem to be generally competent with admin-related things, though no one area of expertise stands out... except your choice of topics to write about. I am put off by Afro engineering in particular. Surprised that doesn't seem to have been discussed yet in this RfA. I wish you had devoted more energy to more encyclopedic topics. wbm1058 (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - refer to "the racist slur" linked into question 10 and the response given. It is discussed. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that since the link was piped. Right, I'm concerned that they need a "second opinion" on such things, and that, even after an AfD, this is still being discussed. Rather unbecoming for Wikipedia's image. Administrators should have better judgment and discretion in such matters. wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with "unbecoming for Wikipedia's image". Wikipedia does not censor, this means that there are articles dealing with everything including racism. It means that things that make you uncomfortable will exist on the encyclopaedia. The fact that we have an article on Heteropatriarchy bothers me for example. Yet I live with and accept it. Although, you are entitled to your opinion, so I won't "badger" any further. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite the meme, Wikipedia does censor. For example, we don't publish the cell phone numbers of every living person, and we have a mechanism for suppression of some content so that even I, an administrator, cannot see it. I'm not uncomfortable with general articles about topics relating to racism and sexual orientations. I would be uncomfortable with an encyclopedia that felt the need to write 500 articles about individual racial slurs, and categorize and list them all. If this were just an outlier among many other more appropriate contributions, I might be inclined to give it a pass, but this shows up in the list of their top ten most-edited articles. wbm1058 (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant in the form of articles and content, but, point taken. Sure, I understand. Every person has their own concerns. And naturally things that concern one person, might not another. *Shrugs* we both voted neutral, so we both have at least some reservations about the candidate. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm downright confused by this statement. There are few things more encyclopedic than documenting mistakes of the past with the hope they teach us enough to better the future. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wbm1058, I have to say I share Rob's confusion. I, too, see the role of an encyclopedia in these matters as that of documentation, shedding light in murky places, so to speak, such that mistakes that society has made will not be repeated. I would want Wikipedia to thoroughly document a racial slur, so long, obviously, as we document it as a racial slur. Please don't take this as disagreement with your !vote: I am genuinely curious. Vanamonde (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this some more. I don't think this is merely documenting mistakes of the past. There is probably a not insignificant minority of "Trump voters" who still think and talk this way (what H. called "the deplorables"). I understand the desire to document the subject in an encyclopedic manner, and support that if there is sufficient academic study on the subject to support it and the article is more fully developed in a manner that delivers an appropriate message. Most topics, we tolerate a short stub tagged with encouragement for others to develop the article further; this is not a subject where that's appropriate. There should be a lot of there there in the very first version that is posted online, or at least in article space. Another example to help explain what I'm getting at: grease fire (though not as bad as weak coverage of racial issues) has been renamed to Class B fire and improved by others. Probably a good area for professional firefighters, who presumably have some expertise, to write in. Afro engineering is too reliant on dictionaries of slang and general news items. Is it undue to point out a particular individual's use of the term as reported in a news article about them? What did I actually learn from this article? That the term "originated" in the fifties (who coined the term, and in what context did they use it, how did the use spread?) and was "euphemized" in the 70s. The terms were generally considered both racist and politically incorrect towards the late 20th century forward? You mean to tell me that in the 1950s and 1960s they were not generally considered both racist and politically incorrect? Is usage still growing today, or is it in decline? Is usage higher in certain localities than others? If you can find academic research that answers these sorts of questions, then fine. Otherwise, don't even try this. wbm1058 (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, this was already evaluated at an AfD which closed as merge, and that merge is in progress. See Articles for deletion/Afro engineering. The Routledge International Handbook of Race, Class, and Gender source provides a treatment of this term by a tenured faculty member at Portland State University, so it has received at least some academic attention. I'm not in a position to do a more thorough literature search at the moment, mostly because I'm not too familiar with how to efficiently search for academic sources in this field. I happen to agree with the consensus result that there isn't enough in the article right now to justify its split from the ethnic slurs list, although it's close. Still, your original argument was that Godsy put too much energy toward this topic rather than other "better" topics. Are you now saying that this article is unacceptable because he put too little energy toward researching this topic and developing an article that is more than a stub? Note that looking at the article's history shows that most of the edits were various copyedits and tweaking, so the total number of edits to the page may be misleading. Godsy has put more actual effort into other articles, even if this one happens to have a large edit count. I can perfectly understand why an editor would be concerned with getting the wording exactly right in an article as sensitive as one about a racial slur. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Rob, I recall that in your RfA your editing was of such a caliber that some in the oppose section were sure that you weren't a newbie and that you had to have previous experience under other, undisclosed accounts because the quality of your edits was just too good to believe that you were new to Wikipedia. I never bought that argument for a second. Nobody will ever accuse Godsy of being like you in the regard. You might be able to successfully write an article on this topic. But 99% of other Wikipedia editors, probably including myself, no, sorry. I don't feel the need to repeat myself, and don't want to go into too much detail rectifying the apparent differences in energy levels, except to say, perhaps, too little of the right kind of effort and too much of the wrong kind of effort. I woke up this am thinking I would give an "affirmative-action" support, for the lack of a better term for my feeling, because so many think the bar's set too high, which would have been more a vote of support for you, who I hold in high regard, than Godsy. But sorry, I just can't do it. Godsy, you should buy Rob a beer. He's been a great advocate for you. wbm1058 (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Addiitonal comments in the oppose section. wbm1058 (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning Support Upon preliminary review of the Legacypac incidents, I believe that while Godsy could have handled the situation better, he was not sufficiently at fault to be disqualified from becoming an admin. Still technically in Neutral, however, until I can definitively ascertain that his conduct was acceptable. Joshualouie711 (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Moved back to Support
 * Pinging to make sure you're aware there are 21 hours left, in case you wanted to review further as you stated earlier. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral On the one hand, I have concerns about Godsy's temperament and decision making that would normally lead me to seriously consider opposing. On the other hand, there are even by RfA standards an unusual number and variety of poorly reasoned oppose !votes, and I don't feel comfortable piling on to them. So that leaves me here for now. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Moved to oppose. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 17:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Moved to neutral/abstain from !voting - see my rationale by my old oppose !vote Patient Zerotalk 15:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I'm not familiar enough with the Legacypac issue to determine whether it would be a dealbreaker on my support. I could easily see this going to a Bureaucrat discussion to start weeding out the support and oppose votes to see where the community lands. Mkdw talk 07:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * # Neutral Cant' reach a solid position in time before this RfA closes (I am not advocating for an extended RfA in the future). There is something tactical here: to urge crats to an open discussion. But this neutral vote is more an attempt to call attention to the time invested by otherwise silent editors. RfAs are important to many of us even if our names are not often on the voting rolls. Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  22:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

General comments

 * Geez, the votes in this RfA are pathetic. Seeing such rationales for oppose is one reason why I've always been, let's say, afraid this community. If anything, I commend Godsy for taking a stand, barely many people do that - it's time people stepped up. Godsy might make mistakes but he says things as it is which I find, very refreshing. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 17:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By and large,, although the oppose votes are many (which is perfectly acceptable), and while a few could indeed be arguably be queried as to being wholly relevant, this particular RfA is generally free of the actual nastiness, PA, and vindictiveness that is so common to RfA and which the community continues to allow to be tolerated with impunity. Equally, however, some of the later supports are tactical, often on their own admission, and even inappropriate in their manner of expression. As a consequence, for what I believe is the first time ever, I have added a qualifier to my vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the first time that people have supported in response to opposes which they perceive to be flawed. And I don't honestly believe that any of the supporters who have said they are countering these opposes are doing so only for that reason. A support means you trust Godsy with the admin toolbox. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's a consequence of the system. In Wikipedia discussions, the duty of the impartial closer is to judge consensus based on the strength of the arguments. However, the way we've designed RfA is that bureaucrats can only exercise this discretion if the percentage of the votes is between 65% and 75%. When the percent was at 62%, and undecided editors perceived many of the oppose reasons to be poor, I can understand the urge to add a "support" vote to "tactically" (as Kudpung calls it) push the percent up into the bureaucrat discretionary zone so that the bureaucrats can actually evaluate the consensus like a Wikipedia discussion is supposed to work. I would imagine such supports will be given less weight during the 'crat chat, and potentially the shaky opposes they were intended to "balance out" as well. Food for thought. Mz7 (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To think in that fashion, is perhaps to suggest that in a way - we are moving forward. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 17:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Allowed me to register frustration at my own failings. Only a few hours are left before this RfA closes and I can't yet reach a decision. First, I read all the opposes, then the supports. Next, I looked at the diffs offered. The hardest step was to read the candidate's contribution, and most importantly, its interactions with others in talk pages (see for example here). I can understand why the high spirits on both sides. Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  21:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.