Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Father Goose

Father Goose's edit stats using using Soxred's tool as of 19:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC):

General user info

Username: Father Goose User groups: rollbacker First edit: Aug 03, 2006 03:46:59 Unique articles edited: 1,637 Average edits per page: 4.80 Total edits (including deleted): 7,856 Deleted edits: 165 Live edits: 7,691 Namespace totals

Article	2170	28.21% Talk	795	10.34% User	204	2.65% User talk	600	7.80% Wikipedia	1371	17.83% Wikipedia talk	2068	26.89% File	24	0.31% File talk	1	0.01% MediaWiki talk	7	0.09% Template	141	1.83% Template talk	272	3.54% Help	11	0.14% Help talk	19	0.25% Category	1	0.01% Category talk	3	0.04%

Month counts

2006/08	63	2006/09	9	2006/10	5	2006/11	2	2006/12	1	2007/01	16	2007/02	49	2007/03	59	2007/04	129	2007/05	141	2007/06	222	2007/07	335	2007/08	616	2007/09	431	2007/10	472	2007/11	442	2007/12	106	2008/01	133	2008/02	402	2008/03	493	2008/04	603	2008/05	114	2008/06	112	2008/07	451	2008/08	640	2008/09	4	2008/10	0	2008/11	3	2008/12	3	2009/01	109	2009/02	183	2009/03	357	2009/04	6	2009/05	10	2009/06	1	2009/07	1	2009/08	7	2009/09	4	2009/10	34	2009/11	105	2009/12	262	2010/01	518	2010/02	34	Logs

Pages moved: 114 Files uploaded: 9 Top edited articles

Article

60 - 2007–2008_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike 50 - Wedgie 36 - Monty_Hall_problem 35 - Airbus_A380 32 - Generation_Z 31 - List_of_common_misconceptions 27 - List_of_school_pranks 26 - Technology 25 - Seymour_Reit 21 - Generation_Y

Talk

107 - Monty_Hall_problem 88 - 2007–2008_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike 41 - List_of_common_misconceptions 20 - Monty_Hall_problem/Archive_5 18 - Oldest_people 18 - El_Niño-Southern_Oscillation 18 - Flash_mob 14 - Hudson_River 13 - Oliver_Sacks 12 - Airbus_A380

User

32 - Father_Goose/Relevance 21 - Father_Goose 18 - Father_Goose/sandbox 17 - Sidatio/Conversations/On_list_guidelines 9 - Father_Goose/monobook.js 8 - Father_Goose/resizable_ambox/doc 8 - Father_Goose/Unreferenced_BLPs 6 - Father_Goose/resizable_ambox 6 - Father_Goose/x1 4 - Father_Goose/sandbox2

User talk

135 - Father_Goose 59 - Equazcion 55 - Father_Goose/Archive_1 17 - Newbyguesses 14 - Android_Mouse 12 - DGG 11 - Len_Raymond 9 - Father_Goose/Relevance/Archive_1 9 - Sidatio/Proto_WP:LIST 7 - Radiant!

Wikipedia

62 - Village_pump_(policy) 43 - Trivia_sections 42 - What_Wikipedia_is_not 37 - Relevance_of_content 36 - Understanding_IAR 36 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-16_Relevance_of_cont... 35 - WikiProject_Popular_Culture 33 - Village_pump_(technical) 28 - Ignore_all_rules 26 - Village_pump_(proposals)

Wikipedia talk

246 - Ignore_all_rules 199 - What_Wikipedia_is_not 158 - Trivia_sections 113 - Relevance 85 - Article_message_boxes 83 - Consensus 75 - Policies_and_guidelines 67 - Relevance_of_content 64 - Vital_articles 63 - WikiProject_Popular_Culture

File

4 - North_River_(Hagstrom_map_of_Manhattan_1997).png 4 - Elteneleven.jpg 3 - Philip_Morris_logo.jpg 3 - PacMan2600box.jpg 2 - MOAB_grid_fins.jpg 2 - XCOM_TERROR.jpg 1 - Pac-man_flicker.gif 1 - Chris_Titus_in_AZ_Apr_2008.jpg 1 - MontyInNutshell_Draft.png 1 - Possible_electron_pair_arrangements_for_XeF4.png

File talk

1 - AssessmentTimeline.png

MediaWiki talk

3 - Common.css 3 - Spam-blacklist 1 - Watchlist-details

Template

23 - Trivia 18 - Essay 10 - BLP_unverified 10 - Bill_Clinton 8 - Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines 7 - BLP_unverified/doc 6 - Ambox/sandbox 3 - Failed/doc 3 - Failed 3 - NOT

Template talk

66 - Trivia 59 - Trivia/Archive_1 30 - Essay 29 - Ambox 18 - Did_you_know 14 - Supplement 11 - Distinguish 10 - Reflist 6 - NOT 6 - Failed

Help

4 - Minor_edit 4 - Talk_page 2 - List 1 - Archiving_a_talk_page

Help talk

15 - Talk_page 3 - Minor_edit 1 - Merging

Category

1 - Wikipedia_rejected_proposals

Category talk

2 - Restricted_images 1 - Articles_with_trivia_sections

Response to User:A Stop at Willoughby
I apologize for the length of this, but you've brought up several points to which I'd like to offer detailed responses.--Father Goose (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

On boldness
I'll open with a general comment. You've probably gotten the overall impression that I am unapologetically "bold" -- that's very true. I'm a huge devotee of WP:BRD. But the reason why I'm so willing to be bold is because anyone can revert me if they disagree with me. It allows me to presume that no one will have a problem with my actions until such time as someone opposes them (through discussion or a revert). And I rarely take bold actions where I specifically expect them to encounter opposition, as that would just work against my aims, by stirring up anger toward me.

As an admin, I would not be as ready to act as boldly as I do as an editor, because other people couldn't revert me freely -- only other admins could. If any of my admin actions encountered controversy, I'd be more than willing to discuss them, and to revert myself if people felt I had acted inappropriately.--Father Goose (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

On the DRV
Regarding the DRV -- that is probably an example of one of the worst arguments I've ever put forward on Wikipedia. I definitely wasn't trying to treat it as nothing more than "AfD 2", as it would have failed for that very reason, and as a result, been a complete waste of my time to pursue. As it was, though, I botched my argument, and the closing admin shot me down for it. But even if you don't agree with my views, I hope I can take the opportunity to convince you that I pursued the DRV in good faith, and in accordance with policy.

My central argument at the DRV was that the closing admin failed to weigh how strongly the "delete" arguments were based in actual policy. Here's the critical point: what's the difference between the subjectivity of individual Wikipedia editors, and the subjectivity of outside authors? To my understanding, there's a world of difference. WP:ASF makes the distinction: a cited statement of what an outside author's opinion is, is a "fact"; the opinion of an individual Wikipedian is not. So if I say that "the following publications (x, y, z) have described the following names (a, b, c) as unusual", that's a factual statement.

Can we base an entire article on such a subject? I happen to think we can, especially given how many different reputable publications have focused on the subject of "unusual names". Mind you, the article could only be written on the basis of what those sources say -- i.e., as a collection of what names various reputable sources have described as "unusual". Individual Wikipedians saying "I think this name is unusual" would have to be disregarded in the formation of such a list. At the same time, Wikipedians saying "I think this name isn't unusual" would also have to be disregarded. But that was the implicit (and often explicit) argument offered by most of the "delete" voters: they were saying "I think these external authors' ideas of what is 'unusual' is subjective".

And I'd agree with them that such opinions are subjective -- it's just that an opinion stated by a reliable source can still form an objective fact, if you do nothing more than state that "this is the opinion of this source". This is what WP:ASF permits us to do. And this is why I opened the DRV: I felt the policy issue at the heart of the debate was not examined -- not by the deleters, and not by the closing admin. They just said, "delete, subjective", and that's why I felt the underlying policy was not actually taken into account.

In retrospect, characterizing these claims that the article violated policy as "vague waves" was a disastrous argument on my part, even if there was perhaps some truth to it. So even if you don't agree with me regarding that point of policy, do you see how I might have felt that it bore reexamination, in the form of a DRV? I just did a terrible job of presenting my argument there. Mea culpa.--Father Goose (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

On the change to WP:NOTDIR
Regarding the change to NOTDIR: One of my errors there was making the change in the midst of an AfD that involved that policy. Such timing guarantees that people will reflexively oppose the change, since they're already in argument mode thanks to the divisive nature of polling, which is what an AfD is. One of the changes I made to NOTDIR (which was reverted) regarded "[lists of] persons (real or fictional)". This wording is problematic: we have hundreds of such lists that are generally seen as acceptable:. "Lists of characters" have long functioned as an acceptable compromise as to whether minor fictional characters get their own article (this was the outcome regarding the Pokemon test, and has been repeated many times). So that wording needed tweaking, as it was easy to misinterpret, and failed to capture what actual Wikipedia practice is. It remains unreformed at this time... given the hostility I faced the last time I tried to fix it, I don't feel like wading into it again.

You should note that I didn't actually perform the "reintroduction of the change" that I had threatened to do. I do sometimes use challenging language in order to try to get people to engage in discussion, not just opposition. (I.e., I seek WP:BRD, not just WP:BRRR.) My theory is that if you back up your words with a promise of action, that will prompt people to respond. But the responses I got beyond that point were mostly ad hominem, which made me realize that at that time, civil discussion of the underlying ideas was not going to be possible. So, as I said in my response to Q3 ("Have you ever had any conflicts?"), I took the long view, and let the matter drop until such time as it could be reexamined in a calmer context. Sooner or later I'd like to see NOTDIR fixed up. I still think it's out of sync with our actual practices -- and I'm a firm devotee of the principle that policy is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. I think this is why my frequent bold edits to policy are often uncontroversial -- I seek to document community practice. You've managed to find a number of conversations I've had with people who wanted our policies to be prescriptive, not descriptive -- and yes, none of these turned out well.--Father Goose (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

On the change to WP:NOTDIC
Regarding the conversation at WT:NOTDIC -- I'm not sure you've interpreted that conversation fairly. First of all, the very comment you linked to included my making a genuine apology for my sarcasm. If you're commenting on my "certain editor who shall remain nameless", I was not referring to the person I was replying to at that time (LtPowers), but rather to Wolfkeeper, who has for a long time resisted any change to NOTDIC, despite many editors continuing to point out that it is out of sync with actual practice (see ongoing disagreement). After I made the attempt to fix it back in February 2009, Wolfkeeper reverted me with no explanation, and he has done the same to many other users who have made good-faith changes to the page. I'd also like to note that I never attempted to restore my reverted edit. After I was reverted, I offered my reasoning for it at length on the talk page, which Wolfkeeper rejected out of hand. While he isn't alone in his views that "there should be no articles about words on Wikipedia", I see no evidence that there is a consensus for that specific stance. I'd also like to note that I agree with the basic premise of WP:DICDEF -- we shouldn't have articles that are nothing more than dictionary definitions. But we do have several articles about words that go far beyond "dicdefs" -- including at least one FA, Thou. It'll probably take an RfC to get this discrepancy cleared up, as trying to reason with Wolfkeeper so far has accomplished nothing.--Father Goose (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

On the comment at WT:BLP
As for the comment at WT:BLP cited by MBisanz, I addressed that at length in response to MBisanz, but I'll summarize the situation again. In response to other people saying that the page had the wrong tag ("not in source given"), I pointed out that the right tag would be underdiscussion. There was no evidence to suggest that changing the tags would be controversial, and it did not prove to be controversial after it was implemented via a editprotected request. Would I have been bold, as an admin, there? Yeah. It seemed like a very straightforward, uncontroversial change that needed to be made.--Father Goose (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)