Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geometry guy Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Geometry_guy

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

Final (71/3/0) Ended 01:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Geometry_guy (talk · contribs) - Geometry guy has been editing since February and is an expert contributor to WikiProject Mathematics. He made significant contributions to the creation of the featured article Equipartition theorem and the good article Homotopy groups of spheres. Geometry guy is active in Good Article assessment and has experience of AfD, CfD, MfD, template maintenance, and peer review. He is a dedicated, courteous, and reliable editor who is entirely trustworthy. Tim Vickers 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from WillowW (talk · contribs): I would like to second Tim's nomination. Geometry guy, or "G-guy" for short, has been an excellent Wikipedian. His work on mathematics articles illustrates his expertise in that arena, and I believe his GA work and his systematic and numerous article assessments for the Math WikiProject show his general community spirit. In discussions, he's eloquent and civil and has a calm way of rising above the fray. He is impartial and able to criticize constructively even his friends' work, with great attention to detail. He knows Wikipedia well enough to see both its better and worse sides clearly, but remains devoted to the project. G-guy's approach to contributing seems at once selfless and playful; for example, he doesn't list the (many) articles he's worked on and he supports fun alternative approaches to our "praise economy", e.g., the knightly order of Wikipedians. He deserves special kudos for mentoring editors such as Ling.Nut, Cronholm and myself, drawing the best from us. Speaking at least for myself, I don't think I would've dared to tackle the mathematics of general relativity, had he not encouraged and guided me; but his help led to my work on Kepler problem in general relativity and Introduction to general relativity, I hope for the benefit of all. His help on FA's such as Encyclopædia Britannica, equipartition theorem and Georg Cantor was essential to the quality of those articles. Wikipedians can trust G-guy with the admin tools. Willow 23:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominated by Oleg Alexandrov (talk · contribs). To repeat some of the above, Geometry guy has been around for nine months, has done good work in mathematics articles and related to Good Articles, and he is always polite and friendly (which is very important for an admin). I believe he can be fully trusted to use the tools for the good of the project. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept: thank you for your kind words. Geometry guy 19:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many many thanks to all who have commented here. I have much appreciated both the supportive and critical input. Geometry guy 20:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: To be honest, I already do quite a bit of admin work, and I don't intend to change substantially what I already do. My own philosophy on adminship is to use the extra tools as little as possible: after all, there is a reason why not everyone has access to them, so every time an admin uses one, it is good to ask first "Is this necessary, or is there another way?" I do a lot of work on templates and categories: it would be helpful to be able to edit protected templates and make uncontroversial category moves (and also page moves over redirects with two or three edits).

I am interested in image copyright issues, but primarily in ensuring images have copyright notices and fair use rationales, and are only used in articles where the rationales are valid. I also contribute to XfD discusssions and would be happy to help closing them, but again, I think it is more valuable to the project to help a discussion reach a clear consensus, so that closing it is easy. I admire those who work on blocking persistent vandals or disruptive editors: this is not something I could do.

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

A: I like to help out, and I like working with the many wonderful editors that there are here. So there aren't any articles which I can say "I made this a GA or an FA or whatever", and I don't really think in terms of "best contributions". Perhaps I can best answer this question by saying which contributions have given me the greatest enjoyment.

I relish the challenge of technical content: it is hard to be encyclopedic and easy to understand, to provide a glimpse of a technical subject for the general reader, but also be an authoritative reference point for the specialist. I like working with experts and general editors to achieve this balance, as I did on Equipartition theorem and am currently trying to achieve with Homotopy groups of spheres. I also like editing an article, which has maybe lost a sense of direction, and putting it back on course, so that other editors can take it forward. I think I did this with Derivative and Affine connection.

I've also enjoyed working on GA. I originally got involved because I share the view of some critics that GA is a process with many problems (e.g., instruction creep, unaccountability, ambiguity of purpose). However, GA isn't going to go away (in fact it is incredibly active and popular) so I took the point of view that it was better to try to engage and improve it than snipe at it. As a side benefit, I found that working at GAR connected me with new articles and Wikipedians. I particularly enjoyed working on Anabolic steroid, and actually, GA was what brought me to Homotopy groups of spheres.

Aside from the mainspace, I do quite a bit of wikignome-like activity. I work a lot on templates, and am interested in streamlining and automating processes, so other editors can spend more time on content. I am also interested in article assessment, as a tool for editors not readers, and this partly accounts for my GA work. It also accounts for my large number of talk-space edits: Cronholm and I have assessed a lot of mathematics articles. It was a great pleasure working with him, and Carl and his VeblenBot, to make the mathematics assessments among the most well-developed in the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme.

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: I've certainly been involved in many heated debates, and have expressed my views strongly where I felt it appropriate. I don't recall this generating much stress for me though. By and large I only contribute to a discussion if I feel my comments can make a difference: I love it when a comment of mine cuts through a disagreement and brings the parties together. But, if there is more heat than light, then it is usually better to revisit the issue when things have calmed down. I take the point of view that this is my leisure time: editing Wikipedia is supposed to be rewarding, and fun. If a particular conflict causes me stress, I'd back away, and maybe ask one of the many editors I admire what they think.

4. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 18:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Although I don't intend to get involved in blocking, by happy coincidence, just before you posted this question, I was commenting at VanTucky's RfA on his good answers to questions such as this. The policy clearly reflects common sense here. With normal article edits, my philosophy is that it is often a good idea to revert once before talking (with a good edit summary), and only go to talk on the second revert: the editor being reverted might not have a strong opinion and this focuses the effort on building the encyclopedia, rather than talking about it unnecessarily. However, admin work, especially involving something as serious as blocking, is a completely different story: talking and reaching agreement first is essential. Geometry guy 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Optional question from User:Revolving Bugbear Show that an incomplete space can be homeomorphic to a complete one. Just kidding. Actual question: What are your opinions on Wikipedia's fair use guidelines? Are these guidelines as flexible / strict as they should be?

tan:(-π/2,π/2)→R. Oh, you were just kidding, pity! I find the fair use guidelines very helpful. Obviously WP has to comply with the law, and images under copyright should only be used if such use is legal under fair use. However, fair use is also a compromise of Wikipedia's principles to provide free reusable content, so I also agree with the idea that Wikipedia's fair use guidelines should be stricter than required by law. For example, if a free use alternative is available, it should be used instead. The guidelines provide a great checklist for making a decision on fair use. However, I think it is important that these are guidelines, not a policy, because some judgement and common sense may be needed in a some cases. With this proviso, I think the strictness/flexibility of the guidelines is about right. Geometry guy 22:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See Geometry guy's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Geometry_guy: Geometry_guy (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

1. Support, as nominator. Tim Vickers 20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support. I'm delighted to support Geometry guy; I think of him as a top-class editor and a very sane voice on talk pages. Mike Christie (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Seems fine. Good luck!--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong support. All around great candidate. Particularly I want to highlight: "I took the point of view that it was better to try to engage and improve it than snipe at it." Pretty much the perfect attitude for everything on Wikipedia. A lot of our current admins could learn from that. --JayHenry 20:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong support as co-nominator. Willow 20:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong Support Absolutely —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 21:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Yes!`T Rex | talk 21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Q1 leads me to believe won't abuse the tools. Articulate and able contributor. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support I have seen a lot of the candidate's work on the various mathematics articles and I'm confident he'll be a good administrator. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Thoughtful, civil, and his technical knowledge is a boon to the project. I see no reason why this user could not be trusted with the tools. Marskell 21:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strongest possible support - G'guy is the most thoughtful, kind, helpful, considerate editor I have met. His participation in improving the GA project has been instrumental. He has been an inspiration to me, and his encouragement and guidance have been invaluable. I truly and honestly cannot imagine this man abusing the buttons. He has my full trust and support. Lara❤Love 22:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support —Ruud 22:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support – ☐: By virtue of his contributions; ☐: By virtue of his responses to the standard RFA questions; ☐: By virtue of his nominators. Instructions: ☐→☑ Gracenotes^T § 22:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support peR above. NHRHS2010 talk 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support per Tim's nom and Lara's ... umm ... gushing. ;) K. Scott Bailey 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strong Support. A wonderful, well-rounded candidate. Geometry Guy is a great encyclopedia builder who works well with others. He'll make a great admin. Majoreditor 23:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strong support Great editor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 00:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support an obviously trustworthy and knowledgeable editor; prolific contributing and no persistent conduct concerns. VanTucky ^Talk 00:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support without question. G-Guy is a great editor: trustworthy, knowledgeable, patient, and dedicated. If we had a hundred more editors like him Wikipedia would be a much better place. -- Fropuff 01:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. I do have two reservations:
    1. He doesn't agree with me on everything, so his judgment is not always perfect. ;-)
    2. I fear that like many fine editors before him the admin activities will divert him from editorial contributions. :-(
    Other than that, having conversed and collaborated with Gg on a number of projects, I am perfectly comfortable handing him a mop. --KSmrq^T 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    :-) Well, I've already promised to minimize any extension of my involvement in admin, and I'll try my best to agree with you more often in future. Geometry guy 07:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

22. Support maclean 02:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Very unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support I have had nothing but positive interactions with this user. He is thoughtful and balanced in his approach towards editing and discussing articles, and his involvement in the GA project has been beneficial. He has participated in adminstrative style tasks at GA (archiving and acting on GAR discussions, for one example), and does so in a consistently positive manner. I easily support him.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support a good angle on WP. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. G-guy will make a great admin. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Jmlk17 04:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Phgao 06:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 06:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Strong support one of the most intelligent, hard working and level headed admins I've come across. --Salix alba (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support AdamSmithee 08:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Ceoil 11:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Ah man I'm late to the Party and Cronholm's already eaten all the chips Support. --Ling.Nut 13:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. Neil ☎ 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. Pagrashtak 19:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. With all due respect, I did not find Geometry guy's action at the GAR mentioned below to have been in any way inappropriate. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support, good editor, as illustrated by TonytheTiger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong support per SandyGeorgia (hi!) and LaraLove. GeometryGuy is extremely helpful on the math articles and is more deserving of adminship than most admins. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - All interactions have been positive. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. Shows reason and judgment, will wield the tools well. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Strongest possible support. One of the most knowledgeable mathematics editors, with excellent judgement, extraordinary communication skills, great ability to find a compromise in a tense situation. Worked tirelessly on the rating project and patiently answered many angry questions from concerned parties, without losing his jocular demeanour. Defused tensions between the Mathematics project and the Good Articles project by steering the discussion in constructive direction and making many outstanding proposals. Very supportive of young and/or inexperienced editors. Great pick for an administrator. Arcfrk 04:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. At last, a GA regular I can wholeheartedly support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the dispute below: of course an article can be overlinked: see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta/archive1, where an article was turned down for FA because it was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. support knowledgeable, hard working, and I trust him with the tools. Pete.Hurd 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. Shows judgment in Talk discussions, and has contributed to articles. Useful experience in the GA process. The entire complaint (in the Oppose vote below) seems to be this edit in which Geometry Guy closed a GA review, affirming that the article kept its GA status, and rejecting Tony's GA review nomination as inappropriate. It's baffling that this could be thought to be a misstep, when no-one in the discussion besides Tony thought this was a valid reason to challenge an article's GA status. EdJohnston 04:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 08:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Extremely strong support Geometry Guy is one of the best reviewers over at the GAR process. Very solid editor who has my complete and utmost trust!Balloonman 08:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support An impressive contributor, and an impressive co-ordinator. Jheald 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Rudget _zŋ 17:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Strong support, excellent contributor. @pple complain 18:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. Another editor that I thought is an admin already. And thanks for sweeping math GAs. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Clearly deserving - the issues raised by those opposing are still training to aspire to the trivial. Eusebeus 21:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. With not a single reservation. --C S 01:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support wholeheartedly. Among the finest editors we have.  --Lambiam 03:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support--MONGO 04:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Editor has been a valuable contributer to the article review process, and will make an excellent admin. Dr. Cash 06:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support See no reason why he shouldnt have the mop.
    Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Responsible editor. Paul August ☎ 09:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Does whatever Lara does support the_undertow ^talk 01:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - One of very few editors that I see consistently and frequently attempting (often successfully) to avoid and resolve conflicts, steer disagreeing parties towards compromise, and so forth. Many of us do this some of the time, but it seems like Geometry guy does it 24-7. --Cheeser1 07:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - you've been here for less time than me and I'm frankly amazed by what you've achieved. Well done! Lradrama 10:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support I can't see any reason not to support this useful user. Have you ever thought of going to war? James086^{Talk | Email} 11:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - seems very trust- and mop-worthy Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Strong support, as he has been of great help at WP:1.0 and WP:GA, to name a few places. The reasons given in reply to both of the oppose comments are reasonable. I see no reason why he shouldn't be given the mop and the flamethrower. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Huh. There's a lot of people that I thought were already admins that're coming up with RfAs, and this is one of them. Support!  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  16:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Hell yeah! what more can I say?--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support seems like will be a good admin. Carlossuarez46 03:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support takes the critique well, seems like he will be a switched on admin SGGH ^speak! 13:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support — Save_Us_229 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Epbr123 13:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. Strong Support Asperal 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Of course. Acalamari 19:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose My only interaction with Geometry guy was a very troublesome one for me. I strongly disagreed with his handling of a situation. I was having a serious editorial problem at Gilbert Perreault. I had worked hard to take it to WP:GA in July and August. Then User:RGTraynor determined it was overcited. If there is one thing I have a decent feel for on wikipedia as the lead author of over 1% of the Good articles on WP is what it takes in general to make a good article. I am not the best writer and add photos from a point and shoot digital. My articles are useful contributions largely due to the fact that the reader can easily verify that I am using a WP:RS. Most important facts I add are done so according to WP:ATT. Many users have not caught up with the times for good articles and still feel general references are sufficient, while state of the art GAs use inline citations for each notable fact. RGTraynor and I debated extensively on the need to cite articles. We could not agree, we took the article to talk at WP:HOCKEY and WP:WPBIO with no response. At WP:PR the only response suggested inline citations are helpful. After getting this lone feedback RGTraynor decided to remove a whole bunch more citations. We then agreed to take the debate to WP:GAR. This is where experts on whether an article is adhering to WP:WIAGA come together to monitor questionable articles. These experts were unanimous in their opinion that the citations should in large part be readded. Then Geometry guy closed the debate as an inappropriate and sent us off to other forums that are not as expert in good articles. The current WP:RFC again is heading toward no consensus. I feel his act defrauded me of the ability to protect the good article contributions by wiping out authority to add back useful citations according to the experts on such matters and falling back on the opinions of those who are not as attuned to the intricacies of such matters. I question his ability to properly administer controversial matters.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   He was right in closing the discussion and suggesting a RFC. GAR is for having a good article assessed, it would not have solved your content dispute, it would have just removed GA status from the article. RFC solves content dispute. T Rex | talk 21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Feel free to read the discussion. GAR was headed toward a decision that would have solved the content dispute without removing the GA class. Now it is headed toward no consensus and no resolution.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 02:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I am a little confused, let me see if I can get this straight. You feel that his early closure of your GAR dispute was inappropriate, and, because of this, you believe that he is incapable of "properly administer(ing) controversial matters". I would argue that if you comb through some of G-guy's contribs and look at his handling of other controversial situations you will find that your assertion is demonstrably false. He single-handedly diffused a very difficult situation that arose between WP:GAR and WP:WPM. In fact, if you look at any of his contributions in other areas of the 'pedia, you will see that he is consistently pleasant and reasonable, even if he disagrees with someone's view. If you would like some supporting diffs I would be happy to provide them. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 21:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes I feel it was inappropriate and I make my decision based on my only memorable interaction with him.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I stand by my actions in this case. The editor who raises this issue has subsequently been forum shopping. I sympathise with his point of view, and am impressed by his contributions, but this is not the right way to make his case. Geometry guy 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You seem to not understand forum shopping. Forum shopping is when someone gets decisions that he does not like and looks for other forums. In this case, the first three forums resulted in no meaningful response (see WP:HOCKEY, WP:WPBIO, WP:PR). GAR as you can see at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_31#Gilbert_Perreault was headed toward a meaningful response. Now it is headed toward no consensus thanks to your interference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 02:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   So let me get this straight. You took an article to GAR to have its GA status reassessed. You wanted the article kept. Everyone voted that the article should be kept. Geometry guy said, and I quote from the discussion you cited "The GA criteria set a minimum standard for citation, and this article meets them. Beyond that, they do not specify how much inline citation there should be." So in essence, he agreed with you. And you oppose him because he agreed that the article should retain its GA status??? I am confused... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Not at all. At GAR they give advice on how to retain GA status for borderline articles. I was trying to get a consensus to readd the contentious citations. I was getting unanimous support for such actions. Then, Geometry guy came along and said the topic was not appropriate. For some reason, I believed him to be an admin so I did not question his actions. Now, it is at RFC with all kinds of haphazard comments from people who don't know a GA from a GAR speedy delist and who don't know an inline citation from a general reference commenting on the article. If there was some vandal doing something only an expert on vandalism could detect but that was not a standard AIV case and the case was taken to WP:AIV and then someone closed it at AIV and said go talk with people at the help desk instead, the case might not get resolved correctly. That is what this case is like.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   AH... I see the source of the conflict. When you say "I was trying to get a consensus to readd the contentious citations." GAR is not the place to solve content disputes. The place to do that is the article talk page. At GAR, the purpose of the page is to decide if an article should keep its GA status based on how closely it adhere's to WP:WIAGA. If everyone is voting "keep" there isn't likely to be any suggestions for improvement, only "Delist" votes generally list problems. The whole situation seems to center around the idea that you were comming to GAR to settle a content dispute, rather than to ask people to compare the article to GA standards. Since using GAR to solve content disputes is NOT what that page is for, Geometry Guy did the right thing. His action only shows that he is likely to make administrative decisions based on policies and guidelines and will adhere to them clearly. I am sorry that you are having trouble with the article in question, but he was clearly right here. There are many other places at wikipedia to get general comments on the content of articles, such as RFC and PR and other places, but GAR has a narrowly defined purpose, and solving content disputes isn't it. I think an admin SHOULD understand how various parts of Wikipedia work, and be willing to enforce them, even if it would upset an editor. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   In a technical sense (Letter of the law interpretation of what GAR is technically for) he may have done the right thing. But now we have a radical on the loose threatening to remove citations from every good article he is in the mood to hack up. If you go through WP:GAC, GAon hold, WP:GAR you will get 100 requests to add citations for every request to remove one. What we have in RGTraynor is an expert at causing damage to articles that fall between the cracks of forums that can put an end to it. GAR was the only way to get this activity that amounts to vandalism stopped.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks to Jayron for explaining the central point: GAR is not a forum for resolving editorial disputes. By "forum shopping", I was mainly referring to the fact that on Monday morning, subsequent to all my involvement, those with Good article pages on their watchlist were treated to three identical posts: this, this, and this. I'm sorry that RFC is not going in the direction that TonyTheTiger would like, but I'm not surprised that no one has responded to these posts: this is not what WP:GA is for. As TonyTheTiger says, "Forum shopping is when someone gets decisions that he does not like and looks for other forums." Apologies for applying labels rather than simply presenting the information (you should know better G-guy :-) but I was trying to be brief. Geometry guy 07:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Again, those three posts do not amount to forum shopping. Those three post were an alert to experts on good articles in the three places they may look for information. Now, we have ediorial decisions being made by people who don't know good articles. It is rare when an article is considered overcited. In this case, people who have a 2 year old view of what constitutes a good article making decisions on a complicated set of edits. There is almost no such thing as an overcited article. In this case, when put under expert review by people who know good articles the article was not considered overcited. However, when people who barely had any experience with good articles were making decisions they came to a different conclusion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png Your signature with timestampaM) 15:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

   You have the archived discussion, go ahead and use it in your defense if you wish, you have the statements of 5 editors in that archived discussion INCLUDING Geometry Guy. Again, he acted appropriately in enforcing the standards of the page in question, and he AGREED WITH YOU in your assessment of the article. What more could you want from an admin? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I pray you, please take this discussion elsewhere. I believe that both sides have now been presented in sufficient detail for any interested Wikipedian to research and ajudge the matter for themselves. Further repartee does not seem germane to deciding G-guy's acceptability as an admin, which is the focus of this page. Thank you for being understanding, Willow 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry. Comments redacted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks Willow for the refocus, and no apology necessary Jayron: I appreciate all contributions to this RfA. With Jayron's permission, I've unstruck his comments, simply to make it easier for those interested to follow the thread. Geometry guy 11:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose his user name. I think he's a sockpuppet of MascotGuy.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC) just kidding.[reply]

2. Oppose per the issues raised with Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_31#Gilbert_Perreault (which was closed only last month). Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: both editors involved in the dispute over the inline citations in Gilbert Perreault agreed to take the matter to good article review [1]. Geometry guy inappropriately closed the good article review based on a procedural technicality, without articulating the clear consensus that the disputed inline citations should be restored. Furthermore, TonyTheTiger had a very good reason to open a discussion of the matter at a good article review rather than an article RFC: he quite reasonably believed that the editors who would participate in a good article review would be more familiar with editorial standards for good articles than the editors who would respond to an RFC. Of course, sometimes rules on the scope of process usage should be enforced to the letter: for instance, nominating an article for deletion because of a content dispute is widely considered to be disruptive, and can result in the discussion being speedily closed, since the AFD forum is unsuited to the resolution of content disputes. Knowing when it improves Wikipedia to rigorously enforce policies and procedures, and when an exception to the rules best accomplishes such improvement, is a difficult art to master. Nonetheless, it is an art in which an administrator who will be closing process discussions (as it appears that Geometry guy intends to) must be proficient. John254 02:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the comment. I agree with what you say about AfD. Indeed, suppose two editors disagree on how much they need to demonstrate the notability of an article, with one editor diligently adding (say) 10 facts/links or references, while the other removes half of them on the grounds that this distracts the reader from the content. Suppose they agree to take it to AfD, even though neither of them wants the article deleted. Is such listing at AfD appropriate? As you say, no, it is disruptive. Suppose further that the AfD is a snowball keep, with editors commenting that the article already demonstrates its notability with the current 5 facts/links/references. Should the discussion be closed? Yes, of course. Should a link be provided to the archived discussion? Yes. Is it any business of the closing admin to articulate any consensus beyond the consensus to keep? No.

   While I appreciate your point (and often do not close GAR discussions which could be closed, because they are producing a useful review), I still stand by my actions in this case. The GAR forum is also unsuited to the resolution of content disputes. The editorial standards for good articles set a minimum standard for citation, just as WP:N sets a minimum standard for notability. If TonyTheTiger wants GA editors to comment on his content dispute, he can ask them (and, as I pointed out above, he has, rather extensively). It is largely because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy that processes should not be misused or overused in place of good old fashioned talk and clear argument. Geometry guy 09:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   There is, actually, a reason that I claimed that the AFD process is unsuited to the resolution of content disputes, apart from the instructions provided for the process. Experience with the operation of the AFD process indicates that (a) an AFD nomination won't elucidate consensus on a content issue, since most editors' comments will be along the lines of "keep -- content dispute" (b) an AFD nomination in the context of a content dispute may easily be seen as an attempt to blackmail other editors into accepting the nominator's version of the article, with the threat of having the entire article deleted, and (c) the AFD process does not deal with content quality issues, except in the removal of low-quality forks, or the deletion of articles that are of such low quality that it would be more efficient to start over than to attempt to salvage them. Precisely none of these considerations were present in Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_31#Gilbert_Perreault. Since almost all of the editors commenting in the good article review favored restoration of the citations in dispute, the good article review discussion would have indicated a consensus regarding the citations, had it not been prematurely closed and its outcome deprecated. The submission of the content dispute to the good article review obviously wasn't regarded as adversarial, since both parties to the dispute agreed to this action. [2] Furthermore, the good article review process obviously deals extensively with concerns related to the quality of article content. There appears to be no reason to claim that "The GAR forum is also unsuited to the resolution of content disputes.", at least in the specific context of this good article review, except that the instructions for the process might advise against such a usage. In essence, there was a "good old fashioned talk and clear argument" at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_31#Gilbert_Perreault, but Geometry guy closed the discussion and deprecated the result for no better reason than that he deemed the discussion to be occurring on the wrong page. This was blatantly inconsistent with the principle that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. John254 04:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You make your points very eloquently. I have illustrated the similarity between AfD and GAR and you have illustrated the dissimilarity. This is what I mean by "good old fashioned talk and clear argument" and I enjoy it. In the cited GAR, there is little of this: it ran for 8-9 days, but only two previously uninvolved editors commented, and their comments were 2-3 lines each. I would suggest that one reason for this lack of interest is that the minimum standards of GAR content quality (like the minimum notability standards at AfD) were met, and the article was an obvious keep. As far as I am aware, my closure of this GAR was not challenged (or even commented upon) at the time, and there appears to be plenty of support for it here still.

   However I respect your point of view, and am not replying to try to change it, only to explain my own perspective. I have taken on board your well-made points (I firmly support WP:BURO) and am entirely happy to "agree to disagree" on this one. Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. Geometry guy 20:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Having considered the oppose arguments, I must agree with them.--Bedivere 21:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Note. Added after scheduled end time.  --Lambiam 22:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.