Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Father Goose

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

Father Goose

Final tally: (58/6/1); Ended Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:41:03 (UTC) closed by Avi

Nomination

Father Goose (talk · contribs) – I'm nominating Father Goose for an administrator. I would have done so some time ago, except that he needed to take a break earlier this year because of illness in the family. I think he is one of our most careful and painstaking editors, accurate, and productive. I would expect the same of him as an administrator. The reasons he wants the tools make sense, and I trust him to do what he says he'll do with them. I also trust him to not do what he says he won;t do, which is to take any administrative actions that are not in accordance with established policy. Take a look at his proposed template, {{BLP unverified}}. His views and mine on many open issues are similar (although not identical), but I would nominate him equally if it were the opposite case. Some nominations are devoted to a lengthy praise of the candidate. His work, and the courtesy and precision of his language says it all by themselves. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. In case anyone is curious, I've been editing Wikipedia since mid-2005 as an IP, and since 2006 with this account, which I created in order to submit a new article.--Father Goose (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: My career (such as it is) on Wikipedia has been that of a dilettante: I see something that needs doing, and I do it. I haven't specialized in any subject area or type of work. I expect my contributions as an admin would be the same -- if I see something that needs doing, I'll do it.

That said, I'm much more interested in the 'mop' aspects of the job than the 'cop' aspects. Now and again I see a mess that needs cleaning -- an incorrectly-titled article that can't be moved over an existing redirect; a protected template that could use some prose or code tweaking (sandboxed and/or proposed first, of course); an obvious speedy-delete candidate; or unprotecting a page for which the reasons to "lock" have long since lapsed. These kinds of messes are behind a locked glass door; I can ask an admin to take care of it, but I'd rather just {{sofixit}} myself. I'd also like to help out with unwatched pages, assuming that list has some kind of utility.

With the recent emergence of more stringent BLP enforcement, I'm also interested in looking over deleted articles to see if any of them can be sourced/rewritten and restored. I'd also be willing to undelete/userfy articles for regular editors who have expressed an interest in doing such work. (I'd check for specific BLP violations and copyvios before doing so.)

I do not intend to close any XfDs where I have personal views on whether the page should be kept or deleted, as I feel that would bias my ability to read the consensus. As a practical matter, this means I will have little if any participation at XfD as an admin.

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

A: Like I said, I've been a dilettante, so it's hard to point to any "best" contributions. I've done work all over the encyclopedia, and rarely focused on any one area or task. In that respect, I suppose I'm a bit of a WikiGnome.

I think fact-checking and adding citations is the most important work remaining on the encyclopedia, and I try to do that as often as I can. With the recent BLP push, I've been focusing heavily on fixing up those articles. I enjoy using my writing skills to turn a jumble of facts into a real article, such as I did with Mansard roof or North River (Hudson River), or to create the occasional DYK such as oil gusher (my first article) or grid fin. I've also done a bit of image work here and there, such as creating a few diagrams for the FA Monty Hall Problem.

I also have a fair amount of policy-editing experience; just as our articles can be badly written, so can our policy pages. Unclear, outdated, or malformed policy is worse than no policy, as it gives rise to wikilawyering and is a hindrance to consensus. I do what I can to help make our policy pages clearly express the entire community's stance on a given issue.

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. The worst one occurred when I was fairly new to Wikipedia, in a conflict over the page Wikipedia:Relevance of content. Two users decided to disrupt the discussion I was trying to foster, instead of letting it evolve, or collapse under its own weight (which it eventually did). Had they been willing to discuss their own views, I probably would have come to agree with them in the end -- but instead they tried to bully me into abandoning my ideas, which only created a war where a discussion would have sufficed.

How would I deal with a situation like that in the future? I don't know. Wikipedia's conflict resolution process is woefully inadequate. At the time I tried Wikiquette Alerts, informal mediation, and of course endless pages of talking to them to try to get them to act reasonably, to no avail. Those I was in conflict with, on the other hand, were able to game the system by getting an admin to protect the page, thereby achieving their exact goal: disrupting the discussion process. The whole thing finally ended when an independent-minded user spotted what they were doing and took them to task for it. They finally reconsidered their actions; I think we were all exhausted and ready to abandon the fight, and when they finally opened up and discussed their ideas instead of treating me like an enemy, we all found our thinking on the issue was quite similar anyway.

In conflicts I've had since, I've learned to take the long view. It's very easy for people -- including myself -- to get into "argument mode", and to stop paying attention to anything but the indignation in your head. With time, tempers cool, and civilized discussion often becomes possible again.

Additional question from Looie496

4. I see that you've spent huge amounts of time thinking about IAR. What is your interpretation of that "rule"?

A: My interpretation of WP:IAR is well represented by the essay Wikipedia:Understanding IAR, of which I am the primary author. If that leaves you with additional questions on my views regarding IAR, I'd be happy to answer them.

Question from Pedro

5. Your very first edit (way back in 2006) included a wikilink in the edit summary to WP:DYK with the intention of nominating it. You seem to be exceptionally overly familiar with Wikipedia from day one, unless I'm missing something. Did you have a previous account ?

A: No. As I mentioned in my acceptance statement, I'd been editing for over a year as an IP before I registered this account.

Additional optional questions from Coldplay Expert

6. What is your opinion on the Ignore all rules policy?

A: Answered at #4.

7. What are your views on the Petition against IAR abuse?

A: I agree with it, more or less, but I'm not certain the petition is needed. As far as I know, the petition was started in response to the invocation of IAR in the arbitrators' preliminary motion regarding the BLP case. That motion was pretty questionably worded, in only mentioning admins as the enforcers of policy (regular editors are just as responsible for enforcing policy as admins), and in seeming to suggest that admins have wide discretion to interpret and enforce policy as they see fit. I doubt that's the message Arbcom was intending to convey, as it's utterly wrong. If admins use their powers to act against community consensus or the Foundation, Arbcom will usually strip them of their admin rights. If Arbcom itself fails to uphold consensus, that's unlikely to reflect well upon them when they come up for re-election.

8. As an admin, would you or would you not use the WP:IAR policy as an explination for any administrator-related decisions (blocking, deletion, ect...)?

A: Not as an explanation, because "ignore all rules" isn't an explanation. I'd probably be willing to go with my gut regarding an admin situation where "the rules" would produce what seemed like a wrong outcome. But I'd offer my reasoning at length, and if the community disagreed with me, I'd revert my actions.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

9. In lieu of a recently passed ArbCom motion, that said the burden of proof in BLP deletion rests with the editors who want the article kept, merits an interesting new question. If you were to close an AFD, on an unsourced or badly sourced BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus, how would you close it, and how do you think your view conflicts or agrees with the motion?

A. I'd source it properly if I could, stub it using {{BLP unverified}} if need be, and not perform the closure in light of having edited the article. If I found I couldn't source it, I'd have no qualms about closing it as "delete", regardless of how the debate went, since any unverifiable article does not belong on Wikipedia. I expect this approach would be entirely acceptable to anybody's interpretation of any policy or Arbcom motion.

10. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. BLP is a necessary extension to our verifiability and neutrality policies that in effect overrides the principle that Wikipedia is allowed to be imperfect where information about living persons are concerned. (Back in December, I amended WP:IMPERFECT to note this: [1].) Of course, just how imperfect BLPs are allowed to be, and for how long, is an open question at this moment.

WP:BLP also draws a necessary distinction between public and private figures, as well as public and private information. Wikipedia should not make information about individuals public that has not already been widely publicized. At the same time, Wikipedia should not seek to "privatize" information that has already been widely publicized, as such attempts tend to attract that much more attention to the information (i.e., the Streisand effect).

I edit biographical articles as part of my overall Wikipedia work. I do what I can to add citations for information that is likely to be true; remove information that I am unable to source; and remove or modify information that seems to be given undue weight relative to its prominence in reputable sources. With the community's renewed focus on BLPs of the past couple of weeks, I have prioritized BLP work, trying to fix at least one unreferenced BLP a day. I also created the template {{BLP unverified}} as a means to minimize the public's exposure to potentially wrong information, while keeping the information close at hand for the sake of editors who want to source and restore it.

11. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors that are under the age of majority, and how will you deal with such cases as an admin?

A. It's not something I had thought much about before. I've encountered adolescents on the site (some of whom are admins), but I've never come across a minor disclosing sensitive personal information. My understanding is that when we do encounter such behavior, we counsel them against it, and oversight the info as necessary.

Optional question from MBisanz

12. Which way would you opine at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_restriction? And I guess I'll be upfront here, I'm looking for a "support" or "oppose" answer over a detailed "it depends."

A. Abstain. That's a pointless thread, just more partisan re-hashing and posturing. I've made a direct appeal to Anitanode to start using {{BLP unverified}} whenever he/she stubs articles in the future: User_talk:Unitanode#A_request. I can't really criticize Unitanode for removing unverified information from BLPs, but using the template would go a long way toward addressing the other side's very justifiable concerns. This kind of situation is exactly why I created the template: it goes a long way toward addressing both sides' concerns simultaneously.

Optional Questions by /MWOAP|Notify Me\

Q: Explain the following Criteria for Speedy Deletion criteria.

G11

A: G11 strikes me as an "I know it when I see it" test. But I'd say two general principles for "total spam" are if the wording is completely non-neutral, and not backed up by any third-party (i.e., independent) sources. If I came across such an article, and the product or company seemed pretty notable, I'd probably try to do the rewrite G11 suggests is necessary -- write a couple of sentences drawing from what third-party sources have written about the subject, and toss the spam. If it seemed like a marginal product or company overall, I'd probably just tag or delete it as G11 straight up.

G12

A: I actually just did get an article deleted under G12 -- Glen "Frosty" Little. The deleting admin apparently concurred with my assessment. It's tricky sometimes to distinguish us plagiarizing others from others plagiarizing us, but there are several signs that help. One thing I do is check whether there's an Internet Archive copy of the page that predates our article -- if one exists, our copy is plagiarism. That wasn't available in this case. But two things that made me pretty certain that our article was a copyvio was the overall non-encyclopedic/promotional tone of it, and the fact that the other site's article was identical to the article first posted here three years ago, but one paragraph longer -- ours was an excerpt of theirs.

I'm in the middle of a complete rewrite of the Glen "Frosty" Little article as we speak -- Frosty is a pretty cool guy, and we should have an article on him -- just not someone else's article.

Rewrite now done.--Father Goose (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A1

A: If the intended subject of the article is so unclear that it's impossible to either add to it (and be certain that you're writing about the same subject) or to source the existing information, then there's nothing that can be done to fix it.

A3

A: I think I can distill that one down to "Any page that doesn't make descriptive or declarative statements about a subject can't be considered an article."

Important question from Cool three

13. Do you have a strong password? If your request is successful will you pledge to change that password periodically? Have you considered adding a committed identity to your user page to protect your account in the even that it should be compromised?

A. I had a reasonably strong password, and in anticipation of running for adminship, I strengthened it further. (I read of your recent compromised account, and I sympathize.) I am security conscious enough to know that whatever precautions I take might not be enough -- for instance, my machine could become infected with a trojan, or there might be some security vulnerability in the software I'm using that I'm not aware of. I'm not convinced of the benefits of changing passwords -- the more often you change it, the more likely you are to forget it, and then you're just locked out. Or maybe you have such a random password that even you can't remember it, so you write it down -- and then anyone who finds the piece of paper can breach your account.

I had considered committing my identity, but to be honest, WP:COMMITTED isn't very clear about how to do it. But in response to your prompting, I've dug into it further, and have now committed my identity: [2]. Thank you for that.

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Father Goose before commenting.

Discussion

• It's yonks since I commented at RFA but I'll do so here and now for Father Goose. As usual, no sheep-votes from me, you get a comment, take it or leave it. Father Goose is one of those editors who, when you see his name, you know you're likely to see a worthwhile comment even if you disagree with his opinion. He's a very skilled communicator and one of the best Wikipedians. He meets and exceeds any reasonable criterion for adminship, in my opinion. --TS 02:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• • those explanations above of A1 and A3 are the clearest I've ever seen, and finally give a good operational basis for deciding when to use them. They should be added to WP:CSD. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Since my RfA is about to close (and I don't want to do "thankspam"), I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who participated.--Father Goose (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - impresses as sensible and good natured. Been around a while. ergo, better-than-even chance will be net positive with tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
3. I've always been impressed with his work on policy talk pages. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Support - I think you'd make a find addition. And I like your template quite a bit, too. --otherlleft 20:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Nsk92 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Support after some serious consideration to Mbisanz's neutral and the currently lone oppose. I have also been at odds with the nominator at various times in the past. However, candidate clearly has the experience and maturity, and I can't envision them using the tools to further a personal agenda.Tan | 39 01:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Support per some of the editors above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Support I don't confess to fully understanding all the past policy discussions raised here, but I haven't seen anything to make me feel as if he wouldn't be a highly knowledgeable, fine admin. In fact, it seems to to me that some of the oppose/neutrals are instances where he has boldly worked to make Wikipedia a better place, just not to every single stakeholder's liking. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Support per the awesome nickname :-) But seriously, he seems a good enough candidate to get the bit. I like the WP:BOLD and sensible approach in dealing with the BLP issues. --Caspian blue 02:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
11. At RfA, the question is whether the candidate would make a good administrator. I think you'll do that job fine. ceranthor 02:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Support Good long term editor who will make a good admin. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
13. Support I've been impressed with his work on the template, and spot-checking his contributions shows no issues of concern. Ray^Talk 04:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
14. Support Looks like an experienced and well-rounded Wikipedian. -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
15. Sorry, I now see the comment you made about editing as an IP - my apologies for overlooking that and asking what, in effect, was a pointless question. I agree with Tan, too, regarding no risk of tool abuse and Caspian Blue in respect of your approach to BLP. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  10:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
16. Support per good answers to questions 7 and 8 and has the necessary experience. Polargeo (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
17. No convincing reasons not to. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
18. Support I see no reason to believe that the candidate would misuse the tools, and I don't think this editor would delete the main page or block Jimbo. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
19. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
20. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards. Man alive, I just keep finding candidates to support as of late!! I do not even recall when I last saw someone I needed to oppose. Anyway, candidate makes good arguments in such discussions as Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:AndyJones/Triceratops_in_popular_culture (argument was consistent with practically everyone else and even influenced others as seen with the "per Father Goose", Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture (approached it as discussion rather than a vote), Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 1, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional United States Presidents (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture (second nomination) (recognizes the work of others during the discussion), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Star Wars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia in culture (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia in culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thong in the news (again, keeps an open mind during the discussion and recognizes and compliments the work of others), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sketches from Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza delivery in popular culture (once again, acknowledges efforts of colleagues and looks at actual evolved article since nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interweb (does not simply vote, but actually sees what he can do to improve the article as well). As you can see it is not a mere case of the candidate correctly shares my viewpoint in most discussions, but rather that the candidate approaches the discussions in a commendable manner in which he tries to improve the articles, praises the efforts of colleagues, approaches them as discussions rather than votes, and writes thought out policy backed rationales as arguments. We get a sense of that respectable attitude on this RfA page as well. Specifically, I admire that the candidate would "source it properly if I could" when it comes to Afded articles rather than just vote or leave the work to others. As such, we have plenty of examples in which the candidate is thoughtful and articulate and has a demonstrable understanding of consensus and policies so that we can trust him to close discussions in a reasonable and logical manner. Moreover, candidate is nominated by a trusted, uncontroversial, and respected administrator. The candidate has also never been blocked. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
21. Sensible view on BLPs, and trusted otherwise. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
22. Support. I like what I've seen of Father Goose, including when he argued against a particular edit on talk—but when consensus went against him, he stepped up to make the edit. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
23. Support - Seems sensible and experienced, I see no reason to oppose. -- Atama頭 18:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
24. Support per A Nobody.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
25. support per Casliber's support. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
26. support per DGG. Opposes are not compelling. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
27. Support. Kind, intelligent, knowledgeable, reasonable, can change his mind. --GRuban (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
28. Support. Seems okay. Pcap ping 09:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
29. Yes, I think so. Not seeing any real alarms. GedUK  12:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
30. Support A strong advocate presentation by User:ANb and others...Father Goose has the right tools to use the tools rightly. --Buster7 (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
31. DGG similar editor, good editor in the inclusionist side who doesn't cause drama, Secret ^account 16:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
32. Support Trust and respect the judgement of DGG.User has been around since August 2006 and see no concerns as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
33. Support – Candidate look OK in my book, and the answers to the questions look all right. I'm not worried about the low mainspace editing percentage. (I think I'm at around 28% or 29% myself also, but a lot more of my non-mainspace work has lately been involving administrative tasks). I'd rather see quality mainspace edits as opposed to quantity edits, which from a quick spot check, is what I see. –MuZemike 21:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
34. Support. No concerns, sensible and well-reasoned answers to the questions, and a nominator whose judgement I trust. --Mkativerata (talk)_{on wikibreak} 21:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
35. I share some of Steven Walling's concern below, but the candidate appears to have a solid grasp of the underlying principles of the role and not afraid to take oppose-inviting stands on important issues. I hope you stick to the 'mop not cop' philosophy while branching out from gnome-editing.  Skomorokh  21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
36. Support per nom by DGG (If DGG nominates an editor, it's a real seal of approval) and comments by A Nobody. A long-time user who clearly meets my standards, I also note his Barnstars. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
37. Support I can hardly think of any nom whose judgement I trust more than DGG. I remember a handful of interactions with FG and all were pleasant, no reason not to think he'd be good admin. StarM 01:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
38. Support I know that answering questions isn't the only thing that goes into a good admin, but you sure did a great job in that department. I think that Wikipedia would greatly benefit by having you as an administrator. Good luck! Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
39. Support – I'm impressed by the attitude that leads to the creation of {{BLP unverified}}, and I'm not finding anything in the contribution history that suggests to me that this editor would abuse or misuse the tools. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
40. Support - Good attitude, is not afraid to propose radical solutions while at the same time always careful to be inclusive. Wikipedia needs more editors like Father Goose. WFCforLife (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
41. Support. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
42. Support Seems like a capable candidate...Modernist (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
43. Support. Unlikely to do anything crazy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
44. Support Seems unlikely to abuse tools. --rogerd (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
45. Support. Without hesitation.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
46. Support. Seems to be a fine fellow with a good positive attitude. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
47. Support Clearly committed to the project and willing to engage in discussion and not go against consensus. SilkTork *^YES! 14:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
48. Support. In my observation, this editor is very articulate, and is fair-minded in dealing with controversial issues. I've looked carefully at the opposes, and they just have not won me over. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
49. Support: Articulate, fair and committed to the project. I too have looked carefully at the opposes, and they have not won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
50. Support Excellent reply on the talk page, and given your stance above about closing XfD discussions, I think you'd be a top notch admin. ThemFromSpace 06:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
51. Should be fine. Tim Song (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
52. Support I think we can trust him with the tools. hmwith☮ 17:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
53. Support I originally voted "weak oppose" below, but Father Goose took the time to address my concerns in depth on the talk page of this RfA. I now consider my concerns resolved, and I have no reason to withhold my support. I also would like to once again compliment Father Goose for his thoughtful, intelligent arguments at AfD. It is unfortunate that the only DRV argument I previously encountered from Father Goose left a bad impression, but I am glad to see his changed opinion on the merits of his arguments there. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
54. Support – should be a net positive. Airplaneman ^talk 06:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
55. Support Looking over your responses on the talk page and your answers to the questions, I am confident that you will make a great admin. J04n(talk page) 08:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
56. Support per the above, particularly DGG. This is the one time I see a candidate discussing their positions with the Opposing editors, below, where it doesn't feel like badgering. This speaks to the candidate's thoughtful and calm demeanor, and speaks well of the candidate's ability to be a skilled and clueful admin. No reservations at all. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
57. Support, yup, and the fine reasoning at the talk page. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
58. Support per the talk page explanations. Well-reasoned candidate. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Great editor, not suited for adminship.
   While article space is sufficiently well-populated that recent emphasis has been moving from article creation to article improvement, Father Goose has a history of tolerance (or even activism) toward lowering article quality, as evidenced by historical support for Trivia sections and In pop culture lists. FG unilaterally removed mentions of Trivia from WP:NOT.
   The line "Quality punt, fellas" in reaction to ArbCom this thread where Goose is attempting calls for sanctions against JBsupreme, suggests Goose continues to foot-drag on cleanup, and may still have problems working in consensus and with Wikipedia policy in general. I am not confident this editor should have admin tools. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

   I wouldn't call that a unilateral move personally. It had been removed by another editor "per discussion," restored, and then removed by FG. The policy's present form, over two years later, does not include the trivia reference. I don't personally like trivia sections, but this edit doesn't look like a capricious act. --otherlleft 22:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

   I think his approach to BLP cleanup is better shown by the template he designed, which illustrates his skill at getting to the actual point in a practical and concise way. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

   What constitutes "quality" is subject to a wide range of views on Wikipedia. I don't support trivia sections, which is to say, I fully endorse the WP:TRIVIA guideline in its present form. What to do with "in popular culture" information requires a balanced approach. Huge lists of "pop culture references" in articles having very little to do with pop culture are clearly problematic, but in many cases, the subject's presence in popular culture can be a major component of its notability. Jack the Ripper fiction, for instance, is probably a more prominent topic than Jack the Ripper himself. There are a number of FAs (none of which I edited) that contain very justifiable "pop culture" sections, such as Da Bears and Dinosaur. I don't like to see such information deleted from the encyclopedia on the basis of "Ugh! Pop culture!". It has its place, provided it's done well.

   I removed NOT#TRIVIA for the exact reasons I stated in my edit summary there. And for broader reasons as well; I've seen "per WP:TRIVIA" invoked countless times in an attempt to remove information a particular editor didn't like for one reason or another. But WP:TRIVIA counsels against using trivia sections, and has nothing to say about whether information is "trivial" in the first place. That has to be determined amongst editors discussing whether a particular fact belongs in a particular article; I came to learn the hard way that creating a guideline regarding relevance in general is just a bad idea. In the Trivial Pursuit sense, everything in Wikipedia is trivia. Having a policy like "NOT#TRIVIA" with as little context as was on that page is a recipe for horrendous, coercive disputes. That's why I removed it; someone boldly added it, I reverted it some time later, and in the subsequent discussion, a consensus for retaining it in WP:NOT did not emerge.

   I'm not foot-dragging on BLP cleanup. I'm actually doing cleanup, as evidenced by my ongoing contributions at User:The_Wordsmith/BLP_sourcing#Father_Goose. (If everybody who had bothered to comment at WP:RFC/BLP were fixing one bio a day, the backlog would be gone within a few months.) I also created the template {{BLP unverified}} to address the need to get iffy information off a biography page, that, if it proves to be true, should be restored -- after it has been sourced.

   The "quality punt" line, as I pointed out in response to MBisanz below, was probably justified criticism, as some editors did take the Arbcom's initial motion as carte blanche for further mass deletions and policy warring. I oppose a "summary deletion" approach, as apparently does the bulk of the community: Wikipedia:RFC/BLP#View_by_MZMcBride. That does not on any level mean that I do not concur with the need to bring BLPs up to snuff much faster than we have been doing in the past. That'll take work to do correctly. I'm prepared to do that work, as are many others.--Father Goose (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose for a variety of reasons. Not only does he get the answers to 7 and 8 wrong, but they contradict themselves. Insufficiently concerned with the quality of content, verifiability and protection living people from harm. Overly concerned with coddling people who can't source articles. Capacity to cause harm as an admin.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Appears that he likes discussion, that's good - but it also appears to be at the expense of any participation in active admin areas. More experience needed for me to support. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose Policy wonks who can't write articles make me uncomfortable when they're up for sysop status. The examples given in Q2 are pretty unimpressive quality-wise, and for someone with only a bit more than 7k edits I would like to see more article writing/vandal fighting/XFD and less of other work. Those who gravitate to highly controversial areas like policy editing often make troublesome sysops for the community. Steven Walling 18:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   I share your concern about policy wonks. I got into policy work because of how often policy tends to get in the way of encyclopedia writing. I regret that I don't have any one stellar article to point to; as a WikiGnome, my contributions are scattered throughout the encyclopedia. Since I tend to focus a lot on sourcing, a seemingly minor edit can represent minutes, or sometimes hours worth of research. I'm also big on "editing efficiency" (i.e., using the preview button), which further deflates my edit count. And I don't use automated tools, or do lots of repetitive tasks (like vandal fighting/edit reverting). My 7,000 edits would be another editor's 20,000. Or so I would claim. Meh, well, numbers are meaningless. Suffice it to say my edit count doesn't tell the whole story.--Father Goose (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you for the reasonable and calm reply. You're obviously well-intentioned and have people skills, but I can't bring myself to support an editor with such a low level of experience working with the mainspace. Steven Walling 01:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose - I guess I'm concerned with the editor's 28% article contribution, and somewhat lenient view towards BLPs, evidenced in a number of ways. The page creations I see look really good, but given some of the concerns above I don't see a corresponding compelling reason why admin access would help. The user's apparently never done a new page patrol. Given the concerns I don't see the advantage to adminship. As always, if I'm wrong on any of these counts I'll happily entertain switching my position. Shadowjams (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

   It's true that I've never done new page patrol. There are tons of users and admins doing that already, and they're doing a great job. I prefer to focus on actual encyclopedia-writing work. This produces fewer mainspace edits than vandalism and newpage patrolling does, which involves a lot of rapid-fire reverts and tagging. I'd like to draw your attention to 10% of my contributions being "article talk" edits; a lot of article writing involves coordinating with other editors on what edits should be made.

   My interest in the tools is indeed limited. A few times a month, I come across something simple that nonetheless needs an admin to fix, and I feel I might as well be the admin to fix it, given that I do know what is expected of admins in these situations. With the recent BLP push, a stronger reason for my having the tools has emerged: a number of BLPs are facing deletion solely on the basis that they are unsourced. Among the long-term unsourced BLPs I've been sourcing in the past week were a former middleweight boxing champ and someone who won a Grammy just this week. Neither of those articles had any particular inaccuracies, let alone libel: they were just unsourced. If articles like that end up being purged -- which we may end up doing, regardless of what my opinion is -- we'll need admins who are willing to undelete and source those articles. I'd be happy to be one of the admins who's willing to fix the encyclopedia in a way that I think no one disagrees with.--Father Goose (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

6. Just not really comfortable supporting or even going neutral. It's a gut feeling, but I've learned to trust my gut more than digging through years of contribution history. I did look through some of his edits, and I can't really see anything too too bad, but there was something overly politic-y about this answers to the questions, and I agree broadly with most of the opposers above. But those were just my initial reactions, which could very well could turn out to be wrong. I'm going to park myself somewhere around a weak oppose for now, and possibly change my opinion later in the week. NW (Talk) 20:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

   If by politic-y, you mean I seem to be straddling the fence on certain issues, that's because I'm actually straddling the fence on certain issues. I prefer a reasoned approach that takes into account the concerns of both sides of an issue. Wikipedia doesn't need more partisans.--Father Goose (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

   Weak oppose Father Goose does tend to put forth well-thought-out and intelligent arguments at AfD, as noted above by A Nobody, which certainly is in his favor here. However, I have reason to question his judgement. My only prior encounter with Father Goose provides such reason; it was at the unusual deletion review for List of unusual personal names, which he initiated. This is not to say that such a DRV should have remained unopened; the difficult debate in question was indeed worthy of further examination (whereupon the close was endorsed). However, I object to Father Goose's judgement in essentially using the DRV to reargue the AfD. He used a rather weak rationale (based on the idea that some of the arguments for deletion were "vaguewaves") for challenging the close and could not bring himself to accept the consensus or even look at the debate impartially. I see a similar issue in this thread at WT:NOT, which transpired after Father Goose made a bold substantial change to the policy at WP:NOT. I assume good faith and believe that Father Goose made the change as part of WP:BRD and not to bolster his position in this AfD. However, I am concerned by this comment, in which Father Goose declares his intention to make the change again even though the discussion did not result in consensus to do so. Similarly, with this comment at WT:NOTDIC, Father Goose derided an editor for following through on the "revert" and "discuss" portions of BRD after Father Goose made a contested change to the WP:NOTDIC policy. Combined with this recent diff, already cited by MBisanz, my impression is that Father Goose might be the type of admin who shoots first and asks questions later. I admire his ability to argue intellectually at AfD and elsewhere, but I have my doubts about giving him the tools. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

   I've responded to your concerns at length on the talk page.--Father Goose (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you for taking the time to do that, Father Goose. I appreciate your candor. I consider my concerns resolved, and I will move to the support section. (With your permission, I will not strike the text of my oppose so as to allow for legibility.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral This thread and this edit leave me concerned that the user seeks the tools in order to push his view of policy or at the very least, the second edit seems to indicate he would edit a protected page that he felt was at the wrong version to make it what he thinks is the right version.
   On the other hand, I do like his view at WP:AN on civility. But I am still concerned about his BLP views in light of the off-wiki coordination with User:Ikip indicated at User:Ikip/arb. I can still be convinced either way. MBisanz ^talk 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

   If you're referring to my last comment on the arbitration talk page, regarding the "punt", I feel it was... overdramatic, but nonetheless justified. You yourself filed the very followup case I feared would happen as a result of the hasty first motion: [3].

   As for my comment on BLP talk, the editprotected request I filed shortly thereafter was granted uncontroversially. I wasn't looking to change the policy to my preferred version, but I did feel it was important to direct people's attention to the fact that the version it was locked on seemed to have no consensus whatsoever: [4]. I also note that at the time it was locked on the "non-consensus version", some people were trying to represent the new wording as unopposable policy.--Father Goose (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

   Oh, and I've never had any off-wiki coordination with Ikip. It appears that Ikip took my request for an injunction and drew it up in the form of a request to open an Arbcom case, which I never endorsed.--Father Goose (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

   I'm not sure I understand MBisanz's objection to the first thread. The key issue, for me, is that it seems as if some editors were arbitrarily insisting that their PRODs not be removed, which is completely unacceptable. Father Goose was quite right in contesting that, no? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   The latest proposal to clarify our policy on protection of policy pages is at WT:PROTECT#Clarify/change WP:PREFER. I agree with Matt that the candidate's suggestion is a problem (that IAR/BOLD is a sufficient reason for an admin to edit a protected page that they have expressed a strong position on ... misuse of admin tools never "improves the encyclopedia"). OTOH, quite a few people have felt strongly at one time or another that protecting a policy page in a version different than the version that's been around for a while is a bad idea. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   I guess I need to stress here that I wasn't even advocating reverting it to the WP:PREFERred version -- I was suggesting that it needed an {{underdiscussion}} tag, pointing readers to the thread where the disputed change was being discussed. That's why I would have been bold about it, as an admin -- it's almost never controversial to use that tag when a policy page is locked as a result of warring over a disputed change.--Father Goose (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   I was referring to your suggestion to remove the "not in citation" tag. I actually agree personally that tags don't seem to play much of a role in the outcome of policy disputes, but there's no consensus on that, and since non-admins can't get them removed without discussion when the page is protected, involved admins shouldn't either. Agreed that adding the "underdiscussion" pointer to the discussion on the talk page is generally a non-issue. - Dank (push to talk) 05:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   P.S. And to be precise, your suggestion to remove the tag doesn't bother me; it's a relatively minor thing, and people shouldn't approach talk page discussion as if it's a test that they have to get right, that will interfere with free discussion. But this RfA is a test, so you may (or may not) want to take this opportunity to expand a little bit on your comments. - Dank (push to talk) 05:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, one more clarification: the "not in citation" tag was added after the article was protected, apparently to signify that the language was disputed.[5] A few days later, several people commented that its addition didn't make sense. Then someone said, "Well, why don't we fix it already?", and I said, "Well, I would if I could." After which people sat on their hands for a day, so I made an editprotected request, which was granted. Had I been an admin, I would have just done it myself. I wouldn't have espoused boldness if I had had any reason to think the change would have been controversial.--Father Goose (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2010 (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.