Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Muboshgu

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

Muboshgu

Final (193/4/1). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 18:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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

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

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

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

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

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Alex Shih

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

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

Additional question from Alex Shih

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

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

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

Additional question from BU Rob13

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

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

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

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

Additional question from Andrew D.

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

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

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

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

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

^ This. That edit was appropriately rev-deleted.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 04:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Beyond My Ken

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

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

Additional question from Beyond My Ken

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

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

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

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

Additional question from TheDragonFire

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

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

Additional question from Zubin12

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

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

Additional question from Andrew D.

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

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

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

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

When I see a strange word, I like to know what it means and so I look it up. That didn't help in this case and user names can be significant, as discussed at WP:UPOL. I'm still not sure what it means. Andrew D. (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Vanamonde93

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

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

Additional question from Feminist

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

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

Additional question from Galobtter

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

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

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

Additional question from Codename Lisa

16.

Hello. This question is about a very tough situation that actually did happen, so please pay particular attention. (I'd avoid this question in any other RfA, but you'll find this question will relate well to the last straw you mentioned in your nomination.) A persistent IP editor has added contents to an article that four registered editors in good standing have so far reverted. Not all the reversions have edit summaries, but of those that have, some read "vandalism", two read "unreliable source" and one "blatantly false accussations, exact opposite of what the source says". A page protection request has been filed but is rejected. The rejecting admin has on separate occassions treatened the involved registered editors with block for "WP:BITE-ing an IP editor" on their user talk pages, but has not done so, even though there are now five violations of 3RR on the article. One of the said registered editors has claimed (in his/her talk page) that the contribution has written the complete opposite of what the source says to the detriment of the subject of the contribution, and this stark difference is enough to qualify the act as vandalism. As such, his/her reversion is exempt from 3RR.

As an admin, will you take any action without being asked to? Will you take any action if asked to? Please justify your action, whether it is "yes" or "no".

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

A: That's quite a situation and a really good question. I'm thinking about it and will give a full answer soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That is quite a situation, with a lot of moving parts. It's possible that learning additional details of the situation I do not presently know might change my opinion, and therefore my approach.

You say it's a "persistent IP editor", which leads me to believe we are not dealing with a newcomer, in the strictist sense of the word. IP editors can be aware of wiki policies but simply choose not to register an account. Perhaps you meant a new IP who has been persistent in this one case.

If four registered users in good standing have reverted the IPs edits, that suggests the edits are likely to truly be problematic, rather than an WP:IDONTLIKEIT sort of edit war. It's unfortunate they did not use edit summaries in all of their reversions, and I wonder if any of them attempted any article or user talk page discussion, or even used warning templates on the IPs talk page at a minimum. If it's only one IP making the edits, then page protection does sound like the wrong way to go. However, blocking the IP for vandalism or 3RR violation sounds justifiable, at least in theory. They should be warned first. Blocking these registered users in good standing for WP:BITE sounds inappropriate to me, unless their behavior to the IP was somehow worse than my interpretation of the situation from what you're describing.

So, to answer your specific question, whether or not I'm asked to take part or not, if it's a serious libelious BLP addition the IP is making, then I'll revdel it and block the IP. I'll then follow up with the admin after to find out why he/she acted/didn't act in that manner. If it's not a major BLP violation, I'd reach out to the admin first and then decide if I need to intervene. I don't want to step on another admin's toes and create a wheel war, and I'm wary of too many cooks in the kitchen. But it doesn't sound as if this admin did the right things to deal with that situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Ivanvector

17. As an administrator browsing the information available from Template:Admin dashboard, you find 2 requests for help from an administrator, 3 attack page deletion candidates, 16 copyvio deletion candidates, 179 other speedy deletion requests, 148 open sockpuppet investigations, and 7 fully-protected edit requests. No other information is available from the template (such as the age or any details on any of the requests) and for some reason you are the only active administrator. What do you respond to first, and why? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

A: Also a great question that I will answer shortly. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The most important of those to me seems to be the attack page deletion candidates, because of the serious issue of libel. Second most important sounds like the requests for help from an administrator. Those might be as important as libel, could be worse, or perhaps could be a false alarm. Either way, it probably requires at least a quick glance to decide whether or not it's an emergency. Third I'd go with the copyvio issues, because those simply cannot stand either. I've gone back and forth between copyvio being #2 or #3 before posting this answer. The other issues seem to be potentially less pressing than copyvio, attack page, or Lord knows what admin request issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Hhhhhkohhhhh

18. You said you will involve in AfD close, but why some of your votes did not match AfD result? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

A: There is a significant difference between nominating articles for deletion and closing deletion discussions. If I nominate an article for deletion, I suspect it's not notable. Sometimes, consensus doesn't agree with me. That's fine. I think if anything it strengthens those articles to survive AfD. Closing an AfD requires having no particular opinion on the notability of the article. Rather, you have to judge the consensus or lack thereof. That means not counting votes, bit assessing the strength of the arguments. I feel in no way unable to assess the consensus of a discussion in which I am uninvolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Brustopher

19. You stated in answer to a previous question that while you do not view yourself as WP:INVOLVED in American Politics as a whole, but would not take admin actions in particular issues you are active in. How would you draw the boundaries for these issues? For instance let's take the example of editing Al Franken's biography you gave above. What does that make you involved in? Articles about Al Franken? Articles about his successor? Articles about congressional sex scandals? Articles about Senators in general? Articles about Democrats in general?Brustopher (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

A: I've thought about this alot since the question of INVOLVED came up. Where are the boundaries? I don't consider it a black-and-white issue with clear answers. It'll take interpretation and consideration on a case-by-case basis. Given the Al Franken example, I'm definitely INVOLVED in his bio. My edits on the Harvey Weinstein and #MeToo articles are enough to make me INVOLVED there too. But that doesn't necessarily extend to all sexual misconduct issues by American politicians, and definitely not for all of American politics.

For a specific example I've considered, what about Blake Farenthold? He's another Congressman with sexual misconduct allegations. I've never edited his article. Am I INVOLVED in that article? Does his political party matter in that answer? My personal disgust of that sort of (alleged) behavior? I don't think I'm INVOLVED in his case. We must follow BLP in all cases, but it might be better to allow another admin to handle an issue on that article. So, see the answer to your next question for a bit more on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Brustopher

20. Do you envisage American politics becoming an area you'll be particularly active in as an admin?Brustopher (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

A: I don't want an action I take to be overshadowed by questions of my own biases. I believe that my understanding of American politics issues can be an asset in sorting through discussions that require deeper parsing, but I don't want to be seen as tipping the scales. I won't avoid all American politics issues as a blanket rule. For instance, if I see an edit war or persistent vandalism on a page on my watch list, I'll step in. But I will not actively looking to administer some of the more contentious issues where my behavior could be questioned. In those issues, I may weigh in as an INVOLVED editor instead. I will take the greatest care to ensure my actions are beyond reproach, and I'll welcome any scrutiny on my behavior. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Ivanvector

21. An IP editor leaves a message on your talk page. They matter-of-factly inform you that they are the subject of a biography article, that the page is libellous, and that if the article is not deleted immediately they will proceed with legal action. For the purposes of the question, the article is a short biography about a state politician, and in the history you can see that a variety of anonymous editors have tried to remove a statement about the person's extramarital affair from 7 years ago. The statement is both appropriately weighted and adequately referenced, and the page is now semiprotected. As an administrator, how can you respond to this situation? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A: I would politely direct that IP editor to WP:LEGAL and inform them that they may be blocked if continuing to make legal threats. Given that the statement of the affair is reliably sourced and given proper weight, its not libel. The page being semi protected should prevent vandalism, for the time being. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I hope you'll indulge me breaking the two-question limit with this brief follow-up. Say that the statement appears properly referenced but the citation gives you a page not found error on the website of a local newspaper. Searching for the title given in the citation, you find the story on archive.org, but also find that the newspaper published a complete retraction on a date long after the original story was archived. Does this change your response? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Follow-ups are allowed, so I'll indulge. If the story was retracted, then it shouldn't be included in the biography. I'd look to see what other sources say on the matter. If that's the only source to report the affair and it's been retracted, it's better to say nothing than provide inaccurate info. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Unscintillating

22. Below in discussion I've already asked a question, simplified as:

One specific is that WP:BEFORE C3 is to engage with the content contributors before escalating to the wider community.  If the candidate understands that AfD is not his specialty, why is he skipping process?

Or if the candidate would prefer to skip that one,

Please discuss the issue of improving the quality of AfD nominations.

Unscintillating (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

A: I followed most of WP:BEFORE. In hindsight, I should've opened a talk page thread with an eye towards merging content. The problem I see there is that there is no mechanism designed for merges, as there are for deletions and page moves, and many merge-and-redirects come from AfDs. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Unscintillating

23. Given that the first step in solving a problem is identifying a problem, and you have stated above, "The problem I see ...is that there is no mechanism designed for merges", what is the next step in solving this problem?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A: The next step would be to go to related talk pages to see if it's been discussed, and come up with a proposal for how to change the current standard operating procedure. I've realized that my answer to Q. 22 is not entirely accurate. We do have the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} templates, with the idea that the talk page discussion they link to should lead to supporting or opposing a merge. I've found in practice though that it's a toothless process. Whereas AfDs and requested moves are formalized, merge proposals are just talk page sections with little else binding them together. So, to be more specific in this case, I do think we need to start treating merge proposals more like AfDs or RfCs or any other discussion threads that are based on supports and opposes, with admins coming in to determine if there's consensus after a week of open discussion (and relisting if more time to discuss is warranted). How exactly to frame that as a formal proposal, I will figure out. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support. Outstanding content contributions and a high proportion of edits to article space. Kablammo (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Support: Impressive content creator, and there is a strong need for more admins at WP:ITN/C and WP:DYK. For someone with 200k+ of edits in the past 9 years and heavily involved in American politics articles, I have no concerns with the temperament of Muboshgu. Alex Shih (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Support A good content creator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
4. Support - always treats other editors with respect, is very well suited to the role of admin, and as Alex Shih alluded to, more admins are necessary to streamline processes on MP space, especially over at WP:ITN/C. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
5. Support. Looks like a good editor. Certainly has the know-how and friendly attitude required to be a good administrator. Malinaccier (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
6. Support. Outstanding contributions. Bradv 19:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
7. Support Good content work. Net positive. ceranthor 19:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
8. Why he wants to be an admin I haven't the slightest, but he'd make a great one. Wizardman 19:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
9. Support Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
10. Support Lets just say I see a forecast of WP:SNOW for this approval. Excellent editor, has the resume to back up his nomination, and level headed. Easily a no-brainer. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
11. Support not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
12. Support As we both edit in sports areas, I've encountered Muboshgu over the years and have found him to be dedicated to building a better Wikipedia. He tends to be a bit more deletionist that I am (75.8% of AfD votes are to delete/merge/redirect), but even where we've disagreed, I've found him to be thoughtful, open-minded, and considerate of others' viewpoints. I have every reason to believe he will make an excellent admin. Cbl62 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
13. Support More admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
14. Support sensible, friendly editor, has the experience and "clue". --NSH001 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
15. Support I always look forward to Muboshgu's insights on baseball-related entries. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
16. Support Well it's about time. No reason not to. Sro23 (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
17. Support. Candidate has the right idea about this and communicates it clearly. – Athaenara ✉ 20:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
18. Support Every encounter I've had with this editor has been a good one, and I think they'll make a great admin. Canadian Paul 20:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
19. Support. Only positive interactions to report. bd2412 T 20:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
20. Support, seems to have clue. Useful comments at AfDs. Better edit summaries would be nice, though. —Kusma (t·c) 21:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
21. Support Muboshgu has been on my "persons of interest" list for at least six months, I just didn't think he wanted to run for RfA. Happy to be proved wrong about that - I've done my research and he ticks all my boxes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
22. Support for his impressive content creation. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
23. Support - looks like an excellent candidate, with a clear use for the sysop tools and the temperament to use them well. The answer to question #3 is particularly telling in this regard. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
24. Support Probably saner than I am. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
25. Support – I'm interested in his response to Rob's question, but this is clearly a qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
26. Support Never heard of him, but a heck load of treasure is listed on his userpage. Net positive! !dave 22:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
27. Support Excellent candidate and highly qualified. Tons of clue with a very positive disposition and no issues. I have had the pleasure of working with this editor at various times, mostly at ITNC and have always found them to be one of our better contributors. Even on the rare occasions when we have disagreed, I have always found them to be very reasonable. Break out the cigars, I think we have a winner here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
28. Support: No issues overall, and great content work. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
29. Strong support: It's about time. (As per prior comments on the subject) Go Phightins! 22:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
30. Support, found precious long ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
31. Support - Absolutely. Yintan  23:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
32. Support - Looks suitable for the job. Quickfingers (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
33. Support - Excellent editor. Thank you for taking the plunge, Muboshgu. I only hope it never interferes with your great content work. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
34. Support - Prolific content creator and contributor to DYK. Excellent candidate. -Zanhe (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
35. Support Long Term user and regularly editing since Dec 2008 with over 200K edits and over 1800 articles, excellent candidate well versed in policy and excellent content creation.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
36. Support - very qualified, no concerns; I'm confident he'd make a great admin. Clear net positive who should have become an admin long ago. 65HCA7 23:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
37. Support Has always struck me as smart and uninterested in drama, more interested in improving the encyclopedia. Good content editor and contributor who has no patience with b.s. Good at collaboration and knows policy. Will be a good admin. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
38. Support with no qualms and just a little bit too qualified. :) This might be the most successful self-nomination ever here! J947 ^{(c · m)} 00:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
39. Support - What I've seen of this editor in action at WP:ITN/C makes me very pleased to vote in support.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
40. Support: Good content creation, long-term editor and wants to fight vandals. Perfectly qualified candidate as far as I can see. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
41. Support. I particularly like the answer to #3 - editor is clearly aware of, owns up to, and has learned from past mistakes. It's a hard thing to do and I respect it when I see it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
42. Support - Normally, for me, a self-nom would be a serious strike against a candidate, but their explanation, and their list of people who urged them to run, is more than satisfactory to me. The candidate's editing stats are very good, and their stance against paid editing aligns with my views. It would be improbable if I hadn't had interactions in the past with the nominee, but I can't recall any at the moment, so I cannot speak to his temperament at first hand, but enough people who I respect have done so above that I don't foresee any problems along those lines. In short, Muboshgu seems to be a very good candidate to be an administrator, and I am happy to provide another (probably unneeded) support vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
43. Support - this one is a no-brainer for all the reasons mentioned above...and a Yankees fan nonetheless!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
44. Support. I especially like his content creation - awesome stuff. Answer to Question #4 was really spot on, I definitely empathize with the RevDel stuff, even RPP takes a long time and the more admins who are interested in helping with those processes the merrier. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
45. Support Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
46. Support - I trust Tony and Melanie's judgement to a high degree. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
47. Support - So you're not one already, eh? Time to fix that. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
48. Support - Have seen Muboshgu around over the years, and approve of this Rfa request whole-heartedly. Jusdafax (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
49. Support: I don't see any issues with this excellent candidate for adminship. —MRD2014 ^{Merry Christmas!} 03:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
50. Support Technically competent, established content creator, doesn't seem like a dick. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
51. Support per above. Jonathunder (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
52. Support I see nothing that would sway my opinion to oppose this RfA. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 03:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
53. Support No negatives I can see, and plenty of positives in providing the candidate with access to admin tools. -- Begoon 03:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
54. Support Muboshgu is only one of the most talented content creators this site has ever seen. His broad range of experience underscores his immense qualifications for the task. I'm delighted that he has finally thrown his hat in the ring. Lepricavark (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
55. Support - Yes please. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
56. Support - seen them around and I have no qualms. - Sitush (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
57. Support -- would be a value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
58. Support. Why not? Double sharp (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
59. Support An amazing contributor! Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
60. Support No-brainer. --Joshualouie711^talk 04:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
61. Support Well qualified and ready. I feel good about supporting this self nomination, and if a BLP violation motivated Muboshgu to step forward, then that is making the best of a bad situation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
62. Support Good content creation, wants to work in needed areas, seems sensible. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
63. Support net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
64. Support I find the editor's temperament absolutely fit for the role. Honest, straightforward and transparent. Not just a net positive, I would say gross positive. Lourdes 06:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
65. Support Absolutely! Looks like the belated Christmas present from the Wikipedia community is about to open. Minima© (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
66. Support – Solid candidate. A master of language, always professional and polite. — JFG ^talk 07:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
67. Support no concerns --Alaa :)..! 08:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
68. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
69. Support – filelakeshoe (t / c)  10:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
70. Support - fully qualified candidate. The opposes votes are unconvincing and are only there (as usual) to ensure that no RfA remains drama free, and no other purpose. Bonjour season of good will... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
71. Support Would most definitely be a fine administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingobro (talk • contribs) 11:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
72. Support. So please let me pile on here. The user is an outstanding editor, really experienced and trustworthy. I am 100% positive that they would be an excellent admin. --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
73. Support Piling in. Had a look through, seems good. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
74. Support Competent editor who I've always found to be responsive and accountable. No reason to believe he wouldn't be fair with Boston Red Sox pages.—Bagumba (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
75. Support After looking over a couple of your contributions, I found no issue. You seem to reply to your messages on your talk page in a calm and friendly manner. KDTW Flyer (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
76. Support I have always found him sensible and reliable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
77. Support No concerns, net positive. -- ferret (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
78. Support, why not? Mike Peel (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
79. Support. Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
80. Support - candidate's attitude is good and their contributions are even better. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
81. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
82. Support - Pile on, honestly not familiar with this user, but a large amount of users I respect have posted "all in" support which is good enough for me. @Muboshgu: grab a mop and good luck ! - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
83. Support. Muboshgu is not an editor I was well acquainted with before this RFA, but after an examination of their record I see nothing concerning and plenty of positives. I would have liked a more detailed answer above, but fundamentally, that response was fine too. Vanamonde (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
84. Support. Eight years of solid editing, polite, and has the insight to say he may have made errors in the past but realizes he will be held to a higher standard. I'm impressed. Ifnord (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
85. Support.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
86. Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
87. Support: Excellent content work, which is more important in an admin than many realize. A "Judge Dredd" attitude of "shut down dispute, hard, at all costs" is inimical to preserving our editorial pool – we need admins who deeply understand the concerns of the editors who are actually building the encyclopedia, not those who spend most of their time judging people at dramaboards. I'm honestly just as impressed by candidates who do a tremendous amount of WP:GNOME work, but GAs and FAs indicate the same commitment to encyclopedic quality. I find the answers to the questions so far satisfying enough, and don't see any temperament or judgement problems. I'm not perturbed in any way by WP:Articles for deletion/Abdication of Emperor Akihito; it's no wiki-crime to lean in a meta:Mergism direction, especially for something that verges on a WP:CRYSTAL violation. If that AfD were still open, I would !vote merge or delete on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
88. Support The answer to Q8 particularly impressed me. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
89. Support - Outstanding candidate with great content creation and a track record of problem-solving. Absolutely should be given a mop. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
90. Support - Always nice to see a nominee with such impressive content creation record. Rentier (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
91. Support - based on review and I also am glad to see the content creation record. Kierzek (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
92. Support - I personally believe that content creation builds a lot of instincts admins need. I like the motivation here for wanting to become an admin. Not worrying about the rest. — Maile (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
93. Support - I have no issues with this Muboshgu. If given the mop, I am sure that they will do good things with it. Questions have been answered adequately. Thank you for your service & offering to become an admin!--TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
94. Support - With that many contributions and not having heard a single negative thing about you, I find this to be one of the easier RfA decisions I've made. Nihlus 19:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
95. Support - A great candidate with many redeeming qualities. I have no reason to suspect that they will abuse the tools, and many reasons to think that they will use them productively. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
96. Stephen 20:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
97. Support As someone who has written a few GAs on baseball players, I can only marvel at Muboshgu's extensive list of contributions. Since he is someone so dedicated to creating and preserving high-quality content, I have no reservations giving him the tools.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
98. Support. Exactly the kind of candidate that "no big deal" was aimed at, and I have no concerns at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
99. Support- Great content contributions. FITINDIA 22:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
100. Support Good to have another admin running revdel and counter vandal ops.L3X1 (distænt write) 22:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
101. Support Seems reasonable scope_creep (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
102. Support – Solid content contributor who has always had their head on straight from what I've seen. I believe Muboshgu will do solid work with the tools. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
103. Support - I see no problems with this candidate. Time for another mop. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
104. Support Clearly qualified. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
105. Support overdue. Should have become an admin years ago. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
106. Support I don't feel that the editing history on political topics makes Muboshgu inherently WP:INVOLVED for all pages in that area, and have no concerns about this editor's ability to evaluate when he is involved on a case-by-case basis. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
107. feminist (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
108. Support. Opposes are unconvincing. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
109. Support Tons of content work and other experience around here, which, to me at least, demonstrates that he should be an excellent admin. Everymorning (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
110. Support. It seems Muboshgu has already received a crash course in why interpreting WP:INVOLVED broadly is a good thing. If there's even a question of involvement, it's best to just leave the action to another admin to avoid the controversy. It saves headaches and is ultimately better for the project. With the candidate's latest post on the topic, I think they "get it", so I'm moving to support. That was my only reservation; you obviously are a great editor overall. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
111. Support Great experience and seems ready. Thanks for volunteering. Gap9551 (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
112. Support A strong content contributor, and has enough experience. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
113. Support, no concerns. Connormah (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
114. Support, however weakly. Muboshgu seems to be a great user. However, the user's statement on wanting to immediately revdel is scary. It is always great to seek comments from other Wikipedians. I would revert and then post the comment awaiting others' inputs. After all, There is no deadline. Cocohead781 (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

     @Cocohead781: immediately removing libelous attacks or BLP violations is not scary, it's necessary. As revdel can be reversed, it's always better to err on the side of caution. Alex Shih (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

     (edit conflict) The wide majority of revision deletion events – including the one in question – are uncontroversial and should be performed immediately, without discussion. I would like to point you to the comments that Risker has on her user page regarding "deadlines". In short, there is a deadline for the living people whom we write about. The things we write on Wikipedia do have the potential to affect their real lives, and for this reason, we have a responsibility to ensure that grossly degrading material about them is removed as soon as possible. Mz7 (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

115. Support I have gotten to know Muboshgu at ITN, where he is an excellent, thoughtful and detail-oriented contributor, both in assessing candidates in ITN/C, as well as updating regular and recent death articles. I am fully confident that Muboshgu will continue his fine work with the tools. Best, Spencer^T♦C 05:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
116. Support no strong reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
117. Support Strong long and positive contribution history. Sensible and familiar with policies. No compelling argument in opposition. Daask (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
118. Support Brilliant content contributions. Questions answered well. No qualms whatsoever. Jiten ^talk _contribs 12:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
119. Support - Experienced, qualified, and thoughtful. I believe he will make a fine admin.- MrX 13:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
120. Support; no concerns. Jc86035 (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
121. Support Good understanding of policies, and well mannered. Candidate has good judgement. But I think he doesnt understand a thing about templates. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
122. Support - Good edits, will likely use tools well.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
123. Support. Trust with the tools – Muboshgu will be make an awesome administrator!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
124. Support passes the Clue threshold -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
125. Support – looks solid. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
126. Support - Have seen candidate in action for years at baseball articles. Personable, self-tasking, diligent. Complete support. ―Buster7 ☎ 16:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
127. support good content creator, which is very important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
128. Support Looks like good candidate. Hummerrocket (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
129. Support I've seen this user's conscientious and meticulous editing for many years in the baseball articles. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
130. Support. Signals and indicators about the competence of the nominee are numerous. Given the huge number of Featured and Good articles, lists, topics and other sorts of contributions, the nominee has build a major part of Wikipedia and has lead by example. Now, he deserves to have a degree of authority in it, because this authority would allow him to lead more effectively. To be honest, the answer to the question 16 outright disappointed me. But then again, the only way I could not be disappointed is by him surpassing our best admin here. Nevertheless, not supporting him would be akin to dimissing a gift of 1,000 Bitcoins on the grounds that its symbol has too many serifs. —Codename Lisa (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
131. Support Hooray! An absolute classic case of "thought they already were one", x many years. I have no concerns and believe they will be an outstanding administrator. --MelanieN alt (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC) (Yes, it's really me - on vacation. --MelanieN)
132. Support I'm late but this seems like a clear yes. Equineducklings (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
133. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
134. Support. Everything I see here says experienced and clueful, and there's nothing in the oppose section that impresses me. I had a smile of recognition about that "last straw" reason for submitting this RfA: I know exactly how that feels. And I appreciate the fact that it was the proximal reason. It's as good a reason for wanting the tools as I've ever seen, and I appreciate the frankness. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
135. Support Well deserved...Modernist (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
136. Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
137. Support Glad you decided to take the plunge'er and become a janitor. ;) Welcome to the team. -- œ^™ 03:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
138. Support - Competent editor, strong content work, and I saw nothing in a sample of his contributions to give me reason for pause. Admins are not prohibited from having political biases (even strong ones); we just can't use the tools to advance our biases. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
139. Support – Strong edit history, proven ability to remain above the fray. Was very surprised to see this name pop up over here, only because "I thought they had the mop already". Good luck Muboshgu and have a wonderful Merry Christmas. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
140. Support I have no concerns. Have interacted with this editor on a couple of occasions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
141. Support - generally a good track record, particularly good answers to questions 17 and 18. Green Giant 14:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
142. Support Good candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
143. Support Glad to see another great candidate. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
144. Support - asset to the project. Neutrality^talk 20:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
145. Support- As has been stated above. An asset to the project. No concerns from me.   Aloha27  talk  21:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
146. Support - No concerns from my interactions. Already a great asset to the community. J36miles (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
147. Support I like the candidate's directness, and think they will be a net positive with the mop. Miniapolis 02:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
148. Support No substantive concerns. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
149. Support - Adequate tenure, block log not really problematic. Sort of had me with THIS... Carrite (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
150. Support - From reading through the RfA, the questions and answers, examining the opposes, and Muboshgu's editing record I have no concerns about his ability to handle the tools appropriately. His content work is excellent and I believe he does not just have the current qualifications needed to be an excellent admin but that he also has the willingness and ability to learn from the mistakes that we all inevitably make. Having read the discussion about how he should consider approaching WP:INVOLVED I believe this further indicates that he has a "clue", is open to learning, and will make an excellent sysop. Best of luck and Merry Christmas! Mifter (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
151. Support All been said already, good editor with good sense. Pincrete (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
152. Support Competent, willing to listen to feedback. No issues. Mduvekot (talk) 13:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
153. Support – I'm certain this editor will do a great job with the mop. –FlyingAce^✈hello 13:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
154. Support - per candidate's edit history, demeanor, and most of the above. Although no disrespect is held or intended toward the opposing editors, I do not find their arguments at all compelling. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
155. Support A sensible candidate, no concerns. Acroterion (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
156. Support - You demonstrate great knowledge of what this position is about. I trust you. CLCStudent (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
157. Support Happy to support Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 18:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
158. Support - No reservations. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
159. Support. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
160. Support The 358 DYKs created (see Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs), the top 20 editing at T:TDYK and the pattern of active participation in creating content is something heartwarming to see in an admin who will be taking steps towards a future role as an admin evaluating content. The responses re either not getting involved where questionably appropriate and taking baby steps in areas where there are past issues all indicate that this is someone who will be an effective admin.
161. Support – I love the reply that Muboshgu gave Feminist, as well as additional comments to others questions. I think this candidate will really help the Wikipedia community and unite it in editing and improve community relations and content on the site. Wonderful to have you on the mop. CookieMonster755✉ 20:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
162. Support - Understands how the block and protect button should be used. They also are dedicated to improving the encyclopedia. Overall, a great candidate. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
163. Absolutely. — fox 21:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
164. Support Seems legit Brustopher (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
165. Support Seen Muboshgu around for some time and would trust them with the tools. Number 57 23:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
166. Support Per nom (and per Cullen³²⁸). To elaborate: I like this self-nomination a lot, taking into account the circumstances in which it arose. I'll note in passing that questions about username meaning and potential searches for nominators would be better posed on the candidate's talk page - as would a lot of RfA questions, really. Airbornemihir (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
167. Support Solid article creation and development resume. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
168. Support A productive editor with no issues that I'm aware of. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
169. Support, no concerns. Happy mopping. fish&karate 10:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
170. Support, no problems with the editor. Is it just me, but who is 'truly independent with a neutral point of view?'...no one. It is often said that "History is written by the victors" and this is correct. As long as edits are from (fairly) reliable sources, what is the problem? Wikipedia is full of western bias (left wing and right wing). SethWhales ^talk 15:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
171. Support: A good editor. I support this user. --Spasage (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
172. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 15:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
173. Support Good experience of creating content and seems a sensible editor. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
174. Support - looks good to me. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
175. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
176. Support. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
177. Support Net positive. CThomas³ (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
178. Support - seen this editor around, no reason not to support. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
179. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
180. Support Why not? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
181. Support Better late than never. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
182. Support Nominee's content contributions suggest a comprehension of what it takes to build a better encyclopedic resource. Likely to be a plus to the project with admin tools. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
183. Support though to be honest this is a cautious support from me, although it's also a pile-on as this is clearly going to pass. I think you probably figured out by now that my main concern is the nature of your decision to stand, based as you stated in a BLP incident which wasn't acted on fast enough. There are many administrative concerns that must be dealt with promptly, but promptly does not mean immediately, especially because immediately often implies carelessly, and carelessness will get you into serious trouble as an administrator. From your answers, I get the sense that you will not act carelessly, but I also get the sense that admin carelessness hasn't really occurred to you, so I hope you reflect on that. If I can offer two more bits of advice: 1) WP:INVOLVED ends up being more about how your bias is perceived by others than whether or not you are actually involved; and 2) only very rarely does any administrator receive more valuable advice than what's written in the oppose section of their own RfA. Best of luck with the mop. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
184. Sure - Umm... 65% accuracy with AfD noms is nothing to write home about, but it gets into acceptable territory when considering all AfD participation. Overall, seems like their interpretation of NOTNEWS and one event BLPs is a little out of step with the community at times, although the community is want to be out of step with itself as often as not with regard to these. Maybe I'm missing it, but it doesn't look like they've touched CSD with a ten foot pole. That's less important than it used to be, but... still something I would expect from someone active in deletion discussions, and who intends to be active in them as an administrator. Obviously content creation is stellar, and anti-vandalism work only takes 45% of a working brain most of the time anyway. If they weren't cautious about diving into to political topics before now, then they should be going forward, because if you don't think someone is going gratuitously link to this RfA when they get their jimmies rustled then you are sorely mistaken. Overall, no reason to think they can't push buttons fairly well without setting fire to anything. GMG^talk 14:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
185. Support.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
186. Support - unequivocally.--John Cline (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
187. Support - I have been offline for most of this RfA so I am late to the discussion and see that I have nothing to add to the above. I'll just conclude net positive and add my support per the previous support comments. Donner60 (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
188. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Opposes are weak and unconvincing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC).
189. Support – Collaborated on and off with Muboshgu over half a decade and have had nothing but positive interactions with him. Long overdue. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
190. Latecomer support per Donner60. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
191. Support Having seen some of your work at ITN, I think that you would make a fine admin. Mamyles (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
192. Support Close to WP:200, huh? Anyway, you already have 2 rights admins have (template editor and file mover). This might make you a useful admin closing AfDs, TfDs, and FfDs. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
193. Pile on support - Remember to take things slowly, be careful, and to familiarize yourself with the relevant policy before taking admin action in a new area. ~Awilley (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

     Will do! I'll be extremely cautious as I get my feet wet. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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

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

   You say that the AfD was a reaching out for consensus, but it disregarded WP:BEFORE which already has consensus, so it was bypassing consensus.  One specific is that WP:BEFORE C3 is to engage with the content contributors before escalating to the wider community.  If the editor understands that AfD is not his specialty, why is he skipping process and ending up with a result that even he now agrees was not optimal?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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

   Amen to that! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

   I did not violate the BLP policy as Xaosflux has confirmed, "legitimate discussion ... you can still ask questions about the specific incident ... My removal was only related to the article subject and not Andrew Davidson's behavior." Ritchie's other accusation that I am lying seems quite improper as another admin was recently de-sysopped for making such a rash statement and refusing to retract it. Ritchie should either retract this or please explain and justify his meaning. My view seems quite straightforward. Notability is a common issue at AfD and so I am very familiar with it. The AfD I cited is a recent one about a high-profile, well-documented matter. If the candidate couldn't get that right, then why would I trust him with other such decisions? Andrew D. (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Oppose—This user has made great numbers of edits to articles related to American Politics; yet, he does claims that he is "not automatically" involved. He also states that his edits are neutrally done, regardless of whether the subject is liked or not liked by him. However, browsing through his edits of some figures such as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it is quite evident that he has quite a bias towards one side. If he can admit that he edits with one side favoured, that would be one step forward. Adding only negative content to some articles and only positive to others is definitely not being neutral, let alone uninvolved; as well as saying that Donald Trump's Christian devotion is questionable. If one cannot edit without favouritism, then it is hard to imagine being able to close an AfD discussion about a sensitive topic without bias, or resolving conflicts without leaning to one side. NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

   I suggest you read WP:INVOLVED. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

   As I recall, I've made edits to Trump's page adding details of sexual misconduct allegations, and to Hillary's page to reduce the excessive details on the email controversy. Those may be evident of my preference, but aren't biased. I certainly have no interest in getting involved on Trump's page or Hillary's in an administrative capacity. On those pages, I'm definitely INVOLVED. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

   It is good to know that you will not be involved in Trump's or Hillary's page in an administrative capacity but I know for a fact that you will be involved in other political related topics. What reason is there for me to believe that you will not misuse your administrative abilities on such topics, as it seems quite likely to me based on history of edits and edit warring. NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

   Because I don't want questions of impropriety to overshadow the actual issues. Giving more consideration to this, it would be best to avoid administrative actions on the more contentious discussions of American politics, limiting myself to obvious actions, like blocking vandals, protecting articles, or with overwhelming consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

   So you are saying that you will not involve yourself with any matters pertaining to American politics or topics which you show strong bias towards? NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

   I think you are putting words into his mouth. What he said was "[I]t would be best to avoid administrative actions on the more contentious discussions of American politics, limiting myself to obvious actions..." Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

   No I am not putting words into his mouth, and I hope what he says is true. Yes it would be best if he avoids such topics. I hope he does avoid such topics as he says but it seems to me that that is highly unlikely, as would it be for anyone in that position. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

   So, you put him through the ringer to get him to say something, and then you say that you don't believe him when he says it. And, yes, you were most definitely trying to rephrase what he said to make it be what you wanted to hear him say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

   Please refrain from accusing editors of doing things you think they are going to do. The nominee has proven no such lapses in judgement to prove they are biased and do not need to restrict their areas because you think so. --QEDK (愛 ☃️ 海) 10:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

   This oppose is so ill considered that IMO it comes close to being frivolous. Admins are not required to avoid doing their job on articles where they may have an opinion one way or another about the subject. If that were true I doubt we could find even a handful of admins who would be able to perform admin related functions on either Trump or Clinton. I see no point in further discussion, as I am sure the closing crat will give this oppose all of the consideration it deserves. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

   @Nikolaiho: What I can promise is that if I have edited articles relating to a specific issue and an admin is needed to render a controversial judgment relating to that issue, I'll consider myself INVOLVED and avoid being that admin. If I believe I am able to render a fair and impartial judgment, I may do so. If anyone challenges my administrative actions after the fact, I will cooperate I'm any discussions of whether or not I acted inappropriately and learn from the result of the discussion. Finally, I highly doubt I'll do anything administratively for at least the first week or so, certainly nothing that could be construed as controversial. I will familiarize myself with the tools and rules before becoming an active admin. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

   I am simply saying that I am voting oppose because I feel that by looking at Muboshgu's history, I do not feel like he can perform as an administrator without bias. Others, please stop taking this personally, if he had an evident right-wing bias, I would still vote the same way. This is my opinion so stop saying that I am wrong. NikolaiHo^☎️ 21:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

3. I concur with Nikolai. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
4. Weak oppose - I do not find any merit to the three (two) opposes above. However, I have two issues with that candidacy. First, I have a feeling that the candidate is a bit... rash? BITE-y? easy to anger? I am not exactly sure how to put it, but I feel they will have trouble to keep a cool head under pressure. This is hard to pin down on a single diff, but I will try, if only because it would be very unfair not to. Exhibit A is proposing one's candidacy out of anger at a BLP incident (FWIW, I see no problem with self-nominations, or with requesting adminship because one would have needed it; but I see a problem with requesting adminship just after the triggering incident), exhibit B is this thread from 2015 (EDIT: see below, not a recent diff) which contains a statement of I see no other option than to revert a time or two, and hope the other user stops or commits a bannable offense. Other similar pieces in the user talk page archives give me a "pattern" feeling, though none is really egregious (unless you dig way back). The second issue I have is AfD (the candidate indicated their willingness to work on that, although at a later date); I do not see any pattern of misjudgement, but I see one recent big spot in this terrible nomination. The article at the time already included sources far above GNG material (a decent WP:CRYSTAL argument could have been made, but the nom mentioned only notability). I suspect the candidate's understanding of the notability threshold is way out of line with the rest of the AfD people (see also this, but at the time the nom was made maybe it wasn't so clear; there are a couple other nominations which I would consider too strict an application of WP:NOTNEWS, but they are reasonable). Neither of these would be dealbreakers but together they push me over the line. Sorry. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

   @Tigraan: Just as a point of order, the thread you linked was from 2011, not 2015. Mz7 (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

   Yes, I would personally not use something from 2011 as a point of reference. For what it's worth, I think the Akihito AfD nomination was probably done in light of the snow closure at ITN/C. Not to justify anything, but I think candidate has shown open willingness to identity their mistakes and weakness. Alex Shih (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

   That's correct, it was the ITN nomination that brought that article to my attention, and the snow close made me question its notability. It's not an excuse I'm presenting, but an explanation using the context of what was happening. I can address that 2011 mishap by saying I'm more mature now than I was then. I used to get too confrontational. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

   I have no qualms with the 2011 thing, now that I see it was in 2011, and I apologize for raising that especially in such a misleading manner. Looking at that ITN thread reinforces my criticism of the AfD nomination. The ITN thread focuses on CRYSTAL issues (which, again, would have been a reasonable argument at AfD) while the nomination bites on notability. It may just have been a very poor way of phrasing the nom but if that is the case I have to question your familiarity with AfD. (EDIT 12:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC): Just to be entirely clear, my problem is not that the article has been snow-kept, but that the substance of the nom is incorrect. When looking through AfD logs to find issues, failed nominations and other times where your opinion does not match the consensus are the places where one is most likely to find policy mistakes in a candidate; but there certainly can be terrible !votes that happen to align with consensus. For instance if you nominate an article per IINFO and it ends up speedied per ATTACKPAGE that is a big mistake even if the AfD comparator will mark the cell as green.) This is only a problem if you intend to close AfDs / patrol new pages and the like, though. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Thank you Mz7, that is certainly a crucial point. I certainly agree that 2011 is old enough that it can be disregarded (my mention of "2015" was to imply that this was kind-of old already, yet recent enough to give pause, but since I apparently mixed up the dates that diff has much less weight left if any). I still believe the candidate is a bit confrontational, but I recognize this is likely confirmation bias at work. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Oppose. In the Muboshgu's response to Nikolaiho above, the candidate said, "I will familiarize myself with the tools and rules before becoming an active admin." I can not support a RFA when a candidate admits that they need to familiarize themselves with the rules. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

   @Dolotta: I said that inartfully. I am familiar with the rules. I've read the admin guide and other reference pages. I understand the importance of the role and what is expected in an admin's behavior. I expect there's more for me to learn when I'm handed my mop than what I already know. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

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

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

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

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

I would hope that admins (and candidates thereof) would know areas which they have strong opinions and reserve their admin actions to only unambiguous instances of vandalism or trolling... e.g., "drumpf" or "killary" nonsense. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

BU Rob13 You seem to be having some difficulty in parsing my comments, so let me re-iterate the salient point: Muboshgu clearly stated he wouldn't take admin action in articles where has prior participation, but may be willing to if "If it's a particular issue that [he hasn't] been active in." That's just what INVOLVED requires. I would be very worried if others followed your lead in thinking that an admin who had edited, for example, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations would be seen as INVOLVED at the Watergate article where they had never participated. Have another think about it. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, Muboshgu, I know you've received advice not to "badger" opposes. I do not mind if you reply to any portion of my comments here if it will help me better assess you as a candidate. Please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted what you've written or misunderstood your point of view on INVOLVED. (You shouldn't feel you have to, though, if you have nothing to add.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I won't badger you, but I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I was traveling today. The subject of "American politics" is massive. I may have personal opinions on it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm automatically involved to the point that I can't be impartial. I understand and follow policies for biographies and the discretionary sanctions on articles relating to post-1932 American politics. I also understand that consensus is paramount and even though I don't always agree with it, we must follow consensus. I welcome scrutiny of my edits and actions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

1. Comment This looks like it will pass and probably should, however I have some reservations and being a particularly busy time of the year don't have the time to research the candidate as thoroughly as I would like. One relates to a comment made when a group of editors were getting together to help another editor that had a terminal illness pass some articles through the good article process. It came across as "who cares" and was probably one of the more callous things I have read from a long time user. Others relate to biases. I don't really have any experience with the American politics examples brought up above, but I have definitely noticed this with American sports at ITN. There was one occasion where they opposed the six nations with the rational that it only represented six countries and then proposed and vigorously defended an event a little while later that was only played in the USA. I could see this extrapolating out to other American areas. These are relatively minor concerns and happened a long time ago (at least four years) and I would probably support if I could find no other serious instances. But with the candidates prolific editing history and the fact that I work over Christmas and would like to spend as much spare time with my young family as possible I just can't be personally sure if this is correct. I also appoligise for not having time to provide diffs and know this weakens my argument. I will try and check back sometime before it closes and if I get some spare time (maybe the 29th) will look for diffs and may even move my !vote. BTW I applaud the self nomination, that is a big plus for me. AIRcorn (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

   That first thing you mentioned, I do not remember it. If that happened the way you remember it, I'm ashamed of how I acted. I hope that's not true. The second, I do remember. I mean, I remember opposing Six Nations at ITN, but not what I supported. A college sports championship? I have learned about how my status as an American influences how I view things and I strive to avoid those sorts of systemic bias now. I would probably support Six Nations the next time. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutral I thought this would be a candidate I was supporting, but per Nikolaiho. We have enough admins pushing their views on project. They sit silently on the sidelines remaining "uninvolved" until they watch their "side" trip up their "opponents" so they can swoop in with the banhammer. No thanks. If you have strong feelings in a topic area, you shouldn't be handling the tools. If the candidate truly does not intend to use the tools in that topic area, I don't see any other harm they might cause and I could support. But there are too many already refusing to acknowledge their strong feelings and I don't think we need anymore. I won't oppose, though, because if ever candidate with strong feelings towards a target failed, we'd have no sysops.--v/r - TP 18:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@TParis: It's certainly not my intention to act in the way you describe. I'm trying to be above board by not denying my own beliefs, as opposed to those admins you reference who refuse to acknowledge their biases. Vandalism is vandalism, edit warring is edit warring, POV pushing is POV pushing, etc., without prejudice. Consensus is consensus, whether or not I personally agree with it. I am promising in this RfA to uphold consensus without personal bias and try to resolve conflicts with disagreeing editors based on the principles of consensus, NPOV, and BLP policies, where relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You know what? I'm being unfair. I shouldn't blame you for how others behave. In our interactions, you've been nothing but polite and kind. That, and your reply is so damn agreeable. I'll just strike my comments and not cast a !vote.--v/r - TP 18:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to strike the neutral if you don't want, I just wanted to assure you and anyone else reading this that I won't behave like that. It's a real problem and shouldn't be ignored. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The revdeleted edit, which was made by an IP which was subsequently blocked, was a sufficiently egregious BLP issue to warrant revision deletion. Anyone who now looks at the history can see that it was, in fact, revdeleted. And I could be mistaken, but I believe every admin who has viewed the deleted edit and commented here has agreed that it warranted revision deletion. That's about as much as we need to discuss that edit. Neither Muboshgu nor Andrew D. (nor anyone else) have made edits to this page that violate the policy. The redactions on this page are more avoiding the "Streisand effect" than correcting BLP violations; see a discussion on this RfA's talk page if you'd like to comment further. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

@Serial Number 54129 It is far too early to say whether Andrew's RFA !votes are correct 50% of the time. You can say they follow consensus 50% of the time and that he has unusual RFA criteria. But for an RFA !vote to be incorrect you either have to oppose someone who goes on to be a good admin or support someone who becomes a problem admin, or !vote in a way that you agree is incorrect when things are explained to you. If we could define the criteria for adminship in the way we define it for deletion or giving out rollback then clearly going against that criteria would be an incorrect !vote, but until then it isn't. ϢereSpielChequers 09:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Zhou Enlai  ;) that was more or less my meaning- following consensus rather than correctness as such. But thanks for the correction, it is, after all, better to put precision over concision  :) cheers! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• As this RfA enters its final hour, I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who commented here. I have learned quite a bit from simply discussing the work of an admin, especially on how my own personal beliefs may make me INVOLVED. Not in the sense that I'll make biased edits or administrative decisions, but that my edits and interpretations of consensus may be perceived as biased. User:Ivanvector is absolutely right about that. I will keep in mind all of the particular comments made in the oppose section and strive to act in a manner that is beyond reproach. I hope to keep learning from all of you moving forward. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2017 (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.