Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geogre

Geogre

Geogre is conscientious, well-read, and well-spoken. Avoids controversy and edits carefully. Someone I consider a solid contributor. More than 2000 edits since November 2003. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Plus he has a great sense of humor. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I thank you for the nomination, Wile E. Heresiarch. I hope that any who have questions feel free to contact me by IRC or on my talk page, and I'll be happy to answer any concerns. I accept the nomination and hope that I can serve to make the project stronger, as well as better. Geogre 00:27, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 15:44, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) - I've met him in passing, but check out this guy's contribs. He's practically obsessed with WP:VfD.
3. Strongly support. This user does allot of important work on wikipedia including cleanup and voting regularly on VFD. From my interactions on irc and from what I have seen from his edit history he seems to have the proper temperament and abilities to be a good administrator.Arminius 16:01, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. He has been very helpful to me in my quest to write sound articles. Support. Mike H 17:13, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
5. I agree with all of the above. Adam Bishop 17:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. Kim Bruning 19:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) This is getting kinda old but err... "wasn't he an op already?" O:-)
7. Salasks 19:31, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
8. 172 23:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
9. Danny 23:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
10. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:43, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
11. I havn't seen many edits by this user, but am impressed by the "Questions for the candidate" statement. Sam [Spade] 04:31, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
12. Level-headed, hard-working, active contributor with a good understanding of policy and a proven desire to improve the Wikipedia. That would be a "YES!" SWAdair | Talk 10:54, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
13. GeneralPatton 13:10, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
14. Merovingian✍Talk 16:02, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
15. Strongly support. --Lst27 23:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
16. Andre 04:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
17. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:03, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) top bloke.
18. Stormie 11:41, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
19. --ShaunMacPherson 15:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) ; It is good he likes to look at votes for deletion, and I think his votes have been reasonable, esp. for articles I thought that should stay. Lets not delete too many articles, just the bad ones.
20. Bishonen 21:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC). Wikipedia would be lucky to have Geogre as an admin. He's such a wikimaniac already that I'm not equally sure he'd be lucky to be one, but that's something else.
21. David Gerard 23:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) (even if he is a stinkin' deletionist) - he also deserves a medal for his dives into the cesspit that is Wikipedia:Cleanup.
22. Lucky 6.9 02:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) Support wholeheartedly. Deserves a medal for his work in the VfD cesspool as well!
23. A conscientious editor who does not see adminship as an important and ponderous privilege but as a responsibility. -- orthogonal 04:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
24. Andris 10:33, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
25. Support. Gdr 19:32, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
26. Geogre would undoubtedly be a great asset to the administration of Wikipedia, our paths have crossed only a couple of times, but his professional dedication to the project has been very evident. If elected he will probably be glad he has a sense of humour.Giano 21:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
27. Neutrality 02:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
28. Support. Geogre seems decent. - Mark 08:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
29. Support. James F. (talk) 14:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
30. After spending some time with him on IRC, I think he's a downright jolly good fellow. Support. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
31. • Benc • 18:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
32. Zocky 02:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC): Geogre is opinionated, but he is rational and not rude. Exactly the kind of person I want as an admin.
33. Infrogmation 15:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
34. Gee! Ogre! - UtherSRG 13:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Reluctantly oppose. While I have no doubt about the integrity and good intentions of this user, and it's obvious they care about Wikipedia, I do not feel comfortable voting for someone with whom I have such strong and fundamental disagreements regarding what Wikipedia should be and how it should be run, at least while people consider adminship to be an important and ponderous privilege (to borrow someone else's words: but I feel this is quite a widely held sentiment). —Kate | Talk 15:16, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

   That's a broad comment. Could you possibly elaborate so other editors know what your difference of perspective is? Cecropia | Talk 20:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   Broadly, Geogre's opinion on what we should and shouldn't write about, and the level of detail we should go into when writing, is a lot more restrictive than mine. Obviously this isn't any reason to oppose adminship by itself. However, I also get the feeling that the community in general thinks of sysops as the people who 'run' Wikipedia, in that they're expected to make (as well as enforce) policy and so on—they have the 'mark of adminship', as such, that is seen as corresponding to established and senior users. Rather than being a small thing that should have hardly any relevance, adminship is an important characteristic of a person. As I feel that Geogre's ideas for what Wikipedia should be would be harmful & limiting to the project, I can't support his adminship (and thus advancement of his philosophy) in good faith. —Kate | Talk 22:15, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

   Regarding the statements you have made, I wanted to mention that while I disagree w you in the case of User:Geogre (he seems a nice guy to me),

   Oh, I quite agree there. My problems are with his opinions rather than his personality.

   I agree w you generally. I bought onto some of the BS about admins being a janitorial/cleanup position when I first came here, but I have since realized that many (perhaps most?) admins don't view it that way at all. I have seen people time and time again come to a discussion with the assumption that admins are more right, more deserving, and more capable of wielding power than other "lay" users.

   I'm not sure that only admins hold this view - a lot of users seem to start with "mis"conceptions about what admins are.

   This philosophy tends to be found along with prolific usage of the word "troll", a tendency towards policy violation/bending (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules), and the idea that anon editors are contemptible.

   While I can't emphasise enough that "there is no cabal", I do get the feeling that there's a very "them and us" attitude at times, and certain recent policy suggestions seem intended to codify an excuse to use "common sense" as an admin deems suitable. And that's a lot more power than any admin should have... —Kate | Talk 23:47, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC) (Apologies for off-topic ramblings :-)

   What to do about it is an interesting question for which I do not yet possess a ready answer. Sam [Spade] 22:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2. blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:04, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Guanaco 23:52, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Writing comments and answers here was the last thing I ever wanted to do. I don't think it will help the neutral, convince the opposed, or bolster the approving. However, with the extended comments above, I suppose that saying nothing might be taken either as pride or lack of anything to say.
I wholeheartedly agree with Kate that admins do not possess greater power, and I hope to help disabuse those who think that administrators are anything more than Wikipedians to whom some janitorial trust has been extended. I know that we have had Sysops acting in blocks in the past, and I, too, am concerned that people have been using the RfA to pick out friends and to ensure ideological orthodoxy and thereby create power in what is intended to be merely an administrative position.
Since administrators do not and should not be Power Users, I'm not sure how my moving to administrator status would make my personal philosophy more limiting or determining for Wikipedia. Since there is no additional power to change Wikipedia, the argument seems puzzling. I respect Kate's right to disagree, but I cannot see how the misperceptions of some people that administrators are the Voice of the Project are a rationale upon which we should proceed. The only thing I will say in my particular case is that I have never, in all my time on Wikipedia, been anything other than consensual. I re-review every article I have voted for on VfD to see if I can change my votes, never redirect without gaining a consensus among users, and I always, always yield to the wishes of the group over my own feelings (even when I am sure that I the one who's right). Unless Kate feels that I will use Speedy Delete or in some way change my practices to become peremptory, I don't really fully understand her concern.
It's quite true that I believe that we should not break out articles on minor subtopics when they belong in the master subject. However, I completely deny that there is validity in "inclusionist," "deletionist," and "eventualist." These are, to me, rather bankrupt terms. To me, there are only individual topics, individual articles, and indvidual Wikipedians. Those who operate in good faith, with a belief in the project, are people I can work with. The most I hope for is a coherent and consistent set of criteria from our editors and administrators individually. If we know each other, and if we can count on each other, we can navigate between the strengths and weaknesses of our personnel.
Again, I apologize for the unseemly debate, and I respect Kate's opinion, even as I wish it were different. Geogre 03:53, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Briefly (hopefully); I deliberately avoided speaking about 'inclusionism' and 'deletionism' for exactly that reason. However, whatever you want to call it, there are always differences of opinion on such matters. I would, preferably, have chosen a more .. inclusive method of imposing my wishes. However, lacking the ability (or knowledge) to change the community's thinking, I can only work within them; which is to say that while the community regards administrators in a certain fashion, it's in the interests of both me and my vision of Wikipedia that the administrators should be made up of people whose views I feel are good for Wikipedia. —Kate | Talk 04:46, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

I actually agree very much with Kate. I just disagree with hir voting stratagy :-P If an admin is supposed to be a janitor, then anyone who we can trust not to Blow Things Up should be handed the keys to the broom-closet, even those who strive for janitorarchy. Kim Bruning 10:48, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you would kindly respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?

A. Yes. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?

A. I do. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.

A. Votes for Deletion and Clean Up maintenance are already duties I perform pretty much every day. I believe that I can aid the others who already work on those areas. I also hope to be able to help other editors and, I hope, to help in defusing some of the conflicts that sometimes arise between motivated, interested, and informed editors. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?

A. My forte is ecclesiastical history and British history and literature in the 18th century. My best article is probably A Tale of a Tub, but the article I think I am most proud of is a Clean Up rescue called Spire. I tried to turn it from a substub to an article, and then I sought and found another wikipedian with an interest in architecture (Giano) to add more bulk, and I felt that the two of us, working cooperatively, made it a good article. The ugly duckling transformation of that article was a real joy to participate in. Finally, on numerous occasions I have sought to rescue VfD entries. Ethos was a fair example of that. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)

A. My greatest contribution to date has been in aiding both in VfD rescue items and in setting forth what I hope are consistent criteria for judging articles. In general, I have not attempted to get into vandal spotting because I believed, rightly or wrongly, that my particular strength was not in that area. I will, absolutely, offer my help from this time forward (if my nomination is approved) to any who seek it on these issues. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

A. I haven't. Like everyone, I have been exasperated by the opinions of some fellow users, but I seek, and wish that each of us would, to differentiate the opinions of my fellow Wikipedians from the intentions or actions of them. I believe that if any of the self-created "groups" of ideologies were to triumph, Wikipedia would be doomed. At the risk of uttering a cliche, I think that diversity is our greatest strength. My taxonomical interests balance against another user's exuberance. My paring and pruning aid, I think, the creativity and energy of another contributor. At the same time, my own articles, with their tweedy and academic bias, are solitary things without the contributions and powerful imaginations of others. The closest thing I feel I have come to an extended gripe has been at watching admins fall into a philosophy that this is their club or that there are social components that trump the one overriding duty of all Wikipedians: We must look to our encyclopedia, and the articles remain after our private tiffs and jokes have faded. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks and good luck!