With respect, I would suggest a quick reading of George Galloway's biography would substantiate that suggestion.
Mr. Galloway has a long history of loud oppositional politics and tribal attacks on his opponents. There are politicians I profoundly disagree with and yet respect for their service and their conduct; George Galloway is not one of them.
I think you're missing the point here. Your opinion of Galloway shouldn't matter; whether you're a supporter or detractor of his, you shouldn't allow that to come into the discussion if you're claiming to act as a non-biased admin. Guy did that.
Not at all. There are people who are controversial because their opinions are difficult or challenging, and there are people who are controversial because their opinions are provably wrong or their actions are demonstrably hostile.
Neutrality between fact and proven falsehood isn't neutrality but pandering. Noting when discussing Mr. Galloway that his conduct has repeatedly fallen far from truth and decency is a reasonable and well-referenced baseline. We wouldn't require an admin on a page discussing the physical structure of the earth to recuse themselves because they had expressed a public opinion that it wasn't flat and carried on the back of a turtle, would we?
Mr. Galloway has a long history of loud oppositional politics and tribal attacks on his opponents. There are politicians I profoundly disagree with and yet respect for their service and their conduct; George Galloway is not one of them.