Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:45, 12 June 2007

DrKiernan

Voice your opinion (7/19/7); Scheduled to end 12:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

DrKiernan (talk · contribs) - I have nothing either novel or alarming to say in this section. DrKiernan 12:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary of my philosophy I believe in "anyone can edit". But "anyone can edit" means "anyone can contribute encyclopedic material". It does not mean "anyone can vandalise, disrupt and contribute non-notable POV OR".

Other discussions:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Main Page featured article protection#An analogy for the question of semi-protection and all subsequent posts to that page
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 11
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 12

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Let me say from the outset that I do not intend to be particularly active. This is a way to access extra tools to improve my editing work, such as rollback, and help out occasionally when the desire strikes, and the backlog gets too big. Areas of most interest to me are protection and deletion.

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

A: My six featured articles. 1 2 3 4 5 6

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: Conflicts, no. Disagreements certainly, but I endeavour to resolve them by discussion, and I would claim that they are resolved. Probably the worst example can be found here.

4. Optional question from Steel:
Why did Raul654 create Misplaced Pages:Main Page featured article protection? What was and is its purpose? 13:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A: He did not create it. He created User:Raul654/protection because, as he himself said, "I was just really, really, really tired of typing the same response over and over again :)" The current purpose of the page, as I see it, is to develop a guideline for protection, or not as the case maybe, of the Main Page featured article through study, evidenced argument and building consensus. DrKiernan 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

4a. Clarifying question from Tikiwont: Who did, according to you, create Misplaced Pages:Main Page featured article protection?19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A: Presumably you mean the "policy" rather than the actual page. It was created with little discussion on 15 November 2006. The first dissent was registered the following day. After lengthy discussion, with no consensus being reached, it was tagged as "disputed" one month later. DrKiernan 06:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Question by JetLover

What do you plan to do about vandalism? Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A: Continue reverting, blocking when necessary, and protecting when necessary, as determined by the blocking and protecting policies. DrKiernan 06:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/DrKiernan before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support. My interactions with DrKiernan have been positive, and I see no negatives in his record. It's fine with me if he only uses the admin tools incidentally as he edits; I don't think you have to pick up a lot of admin tasks to be trusted with the admin bit. Mainly, though, I am supporting on the strength of the FA work, which demonstrates his commitment to the encyclopedia. Mike Christie (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. DrKiernan has already contributed six featured articles, the quality of which suggest a professional background. I expect he wants the tools to help him protect the quality of certain articles and subject areas, not so that he can become an active administrator away from his main editing work. I see no harm in that; in fact, DrKiernan is the last person I would like to see distracted overmuch from the process of creating articles. I am not going to apply to be an administrator myself, but I can guess why he wants to go in that direction, because I have found myself frustratingly unequipped to fight vandalism quickly, as when articles I have been involved in have gone on the front page. That cannot all be left to uninvolved admins because bits of "sounds as if it could be correct" damage need attention from those who know. (I hope DrKiernan is a robust enough character not to be put off the project if this goes against him: administrator or not, we need contributors of his quality.) qp10qp 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per WP:ADMIN#No big deal — superbfc (talk · contribs) 07.06.11|16:52 UTC
4. Support based on contributions. His contributions show him working hard to maintain Portal:Biography, and making sure the articles linked from it are well-referenced. In fact, the quality of his contributions has already been demonstrated six times on FAC. He clearly understands Misplaced Pages and is dedicated to it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Support and all these opposes based on Q1 are ridiculous. Admins can use their tools as much or as little as they like. There is no requirement for activity and stopping him from making useful contributions based on it is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Kamryn Matika 23:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   How does not having the sysop bit "stop him from making useful contributions" given that he's already an excellent contributor and doesn't really intend to be that active? - Alison ☺ 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

6. Support based on high quality of work, and particularly on FAs. I've looked at opposers' claims of lack of knowledge of policy, but the limited evidence provided does not convince me. In addition, I don't find activity defined in pure numbers to be a convincing measure of someone's past or future contributions. J.Winklethorpe 23:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Support I was concerned with Alison's oppose but when I went through DrKiernan's contributions, I thought he/she is a reasonable editor. I went through WP:NOPRO's talk page and I see that DrKiernan discussed well and when Alison objected to some edits, promptly came back for discussion. So I do not see the problem here. As no one in the oppose section has provided any diffs and the the major reason was "no need for tools" (especially when the candidate specifically stated that they'll tackle backlogs), I have to support. I will probably reconsider if the opposers can bring up some diffs. - TwoOars 06:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
   • Thank you for your support. I have indeed gone out of my way to attempt to engage users in discussion of MPFAP. DrKiernan 07:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - sorry. Not enough of a broad range of experience of policy and no clear demonstrable need for the tools, per question 1. I'm unimpressed with the answers to the questions in general. I've also seen issues around WP:OWN and issues regarding your edits to WP:NOPRO - Alison ☺ 12:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
   • Could you be more specific about what I've done wrong regarding WP:OWN? On your second point, all my edits to WP:MPFAP (otherwise known as WP:YESPRO and WP:NOPRO) have been done after raising issues on the discussion page, gauging the consensus and attempting compromise. Indeed, all my edits to the page have been done with an emphasis on moving to consensus, avoiding polarisation and removing inappropriate presentation of opposing views. DrKiernan 12:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   • To be honest, you have made major changes to Misplaced Pages:Main Page featured article protection and many of them have been unilateral. I have questioned a few of the more blatant ones as time allows me, but you are single-mindedly out to strengthen the whole idea of protecting the mainpage featured article. A number of admins have questioned that, including me, and I have requested more than once that this needs to go before the community and not be relegated to the talk page of the above article with little forays into WT:RFPP. So far, that hasn't happened. The whole concept of "the 💕 that anyone can edit" does not seem to carry much weight with you and that worries me greatly. It's okay to point to statistics to show how much vandalism occurs to the mainpage article and how long it lasts for but that must be balanced by considering the third point of the five pillars. As the second supporter above suggests, You will probably overuse page protection (at least in my opinion) and I see that as a Bad Thing. I must say that your contributions to article space has been nothing short of impeccable to-date and you are a superb editor. However, the edit history of WP:MPFAP speaks volumes as to where you're coming from on this. Even the recent creation of the WP:YESPRO redirect is, IMO, stretching a point just a little too far. - Alison ☺ 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Speaking as "the second supporter above" you refer to, if I believed DrKiernan would "probably overuse page protection", I wouldn't have supported his request. With respect, I suggested no such thing. qp10qp 21:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   That was my (mis-)interpretation of your comment. Let me just strike that, so. Sorry about that - Alison ☺ 22:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   • Firstly, I have not made major changes to MPFAP, the policy is still virtually the same as it was, i.e. protecting less often that the norm. What is different is that the "rationale" and "counter-rationales" written by the opposing parties have been removed. Secondly, I have deliberately engaged in discussion and been very careful to invite discussion on each point, by waiting between each minor edit. Thirdly, I have brought it before the community, indeed you yourself left a message on my user talk, which I deliberately pasted into the project page talk in order to ensure wider discussion, rather than discussion limited to user talk pages. The changes have also been notified on the talk pages of featured articles, requests for protection page, and the protection policy, by me deliberately using neutral language. Fourthly, you are not assuming good faith. And finally, yes, I agree that "YESPRO" is non-neutral but so is "NOPRO"; we can't delete "NOPRO" because there are too many links to it, so given that we are unable to delete an obviously biased redirect we can only do the next best thing which is to create a counter-balanced redirect, and direct them both to a page with a neutral title, i.e. MPFAP. DrKiernan 07:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose - doesn't demonstrate any need for the tools (what do you want to do with them?), no XfD and very little anti-vandalism work in past 500 contribs doesn't demonstrate that the editor understands those policies. Also rather unimpressed with the answers to the questions. PGWG 13:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
   • I have contributed to well over a hundred XfD as shown here: DrKiernan 13:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
   • Last three vandal reverts here: Perhaps I should just say, that last one is of particular interest because it was an example of MartinBot reverting to a vandalised version which had to be repaired by human hand. DrKiernan 13:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
     • In the past 500 edits, I counted five reversions of actual or borderline vandalism, and a couple reversions of good-faith contributions (not suggesting that they were improperly reverted) - there were no warnings given to users for vandalism or efforts to communicate with those users directly (that I saw), nor reports to AIV. That does not give me any indication that DrKiernan is able to define or apply the definition of vandalism, just that they can identify an edit that they do not want to see to an article. PGWG 20:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
3. oppose I never oppose people but this editor has not shown an understanding of policy, a need for the tools, and he has not shown he understand what adminship is. Also his edit count is pretty low. Sorry.--James, La gloria è a dio 13:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
   • I would argue that my understanding of policy, and the difference between it and proposals and guidelines, is demonstrated by my edits at protection: and in the deletion debates, e.g. . Tools are necessary to contribute to anti-vandalism efforts effectively (yes, I can do it as an editor but it is more cumbersome). As an admin, I would wish to act as a maintainer of quality, i.e. assist in building a project that is neutral, verifiable and notable, by helping in the removal of bias, inaccurate or non-notable material (as judged by others). As for my edit count, I'm glad it's low, that shows that the quality of my contributions is high. DrKiernan 14:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Just out of interest, James, how many edits were you looking for? Stwalkerster talk 15:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   This user has contributed heavily to 6 featured articles! How can you oppose via editcountitis in a case like that? —Gaff 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   How much more policy understanding do you want than six featured articles? How is having over 3,000 edits, many of which required actual research, a "low" edit count? What is gained from withholding tools from good contributors until they "need" them? This is perhaps the worst RfA vote I have ever seen. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose ~ Wikihermit _(HermesBot) 15:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   RfA is not just a vote. It's a discussion. Please explain why you wish to oppose this candidate. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Per above. ~ Wikihermit _(HermesBot) 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   The votes above don't exactly have inspiring reasons behind them, you know. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose: Not usual for me to oppose, but we do have a lot of admin backlogs that need to be cleared, so ACTIVE admins are what we need. Secondly, how is access (to) extra tools (going) to improve (your) editing work? One can edit articles, and has all the tools needed to edit articles as a regular user. Deletion cannot really be seen as an editing tool, and page protection should almost never be done, except in certain circumstances, and the other admin tools are definitely not required. Sorry, but admin tools tend to be given to those editors who show that they will need them, and are willing to be 'handed the mop' of constantly cleaning up the encyclopedia. Stwalkerster talk 15:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose — I view self-nominations as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Enough. Take this to WT:RFA and stop trolling these Rfas. --~ Wikihermit _(HermesBot) 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   No need to get worked up over this. The bureaucrats will either disregard this comment, or weigh it lightly. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose user fails to show need for tools. Also hasn't made alot of user talk page edits. BH (T|C) 17:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose While a fine editor, I just don't see a reason for admin tools in this case. Rollback is a feature used in several WP:CVU addons, such as WP:TWINKLE or WP:VP. As for using it for protection and deletion in case of the backlog, that is all fine and good if I see clear understanding of policy and warnings to editors. While you seem well versed in WP:PROTECT, I don't see enough elsewhere to need to be a sysop, even though some think it is no big deal. -- moe.RON 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per question one. Miranda 19:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Strong Oppose per questions (especially #1). The snapping at the opposer's (especially on a self nom) is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. ^demon 19:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your comment "snapping at the opposer's comments". I haven't snapped at the opposer's comments. DrKiernan 07:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose per question one and Demon. --Fredrick day 20:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per the first sentence in the answer to question one. Simplicity is good, but I feel that I would like to know more than one sentence answers. --wpktsfs 20:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose In response to answer to Q.1. While I accept that adminship is no big deal, I really feel that an applicant should have the intention to use the tools beyond the ambition of making his own editing easier. Adminship is for the benefit of the community, not the individual.--Anthony.bradbury 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose - Admin candidates should have a clear vision of why they want and need the mop. Unfortunately, this user lacks this vision or refused to put it forward for discussion. --Javit 21:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose - I disagree completely with the changes that you have made to Misplaced Pages:Main Page featured article protection. We should not semi-protect the main page featured article. WjBscribe 23:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

    With all due respect, I do not understand your reasoning here. How does it matter here whether you disagree with DrKiernan regarding that particular issue? It is better to bring that issue up on that talk page. The pertinent question is is there evidence that DrKiernan went against or ignored consensus?. If you meant that he did do that, perhaps you should reword your oppose. Regards. - TwoOars 08:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

16. Oppose - You don't intend to make wikipedia better with the tools, you just want to make your life easier. And your answers were too short. You should never nominate yourself. (My opinion) RuneWiki777 23:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

    With all due respect, that doesn't even make sense. Even if he only used the tools in the process of normal editing (blocking vandals, deleting nonsense articles, performing moves where a delete is needed), that in and of itself is a service to Misplaced Pages. Every vandal he blocks, page he (un)protects, or piece of trash he deletes is one that someone else doesn't have to do. Whether he deletes 100 things per day, 100 per week, or 100 per year, there's nothing wrong with it. Nobody is in this to make their own life easier - if you want to make your life easier, writing for Misplaced Pages is probably not the way to go about it to begin with. That doesn't make a bit of sense. --BigDT 00:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

17. Statement and answers to questions show too little substance for me to approve. TML 01:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose The nom and questions do not show me why this user should have adminship. Captain panda 02:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Per question 1. We need active admins, and although your FA article count is formidable, adminship is not a badge, or a trophy. --Dark Falls 07:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not looking for badges or trophies. There are far more important things in my life than this, and I see no reason to hide that. Hence, my apparent "disinterest". Misplaced Pages is a small part of my life, and it will remain so, but I can still contribute in a small way. DrKiernan 07:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
20. Strong oppose - one-line answers to questions, doesn't demonstrate any need for the tools, not enough experience in things like XfD and countering vandalism, and on top of that he also says he wants the tools primarily for the rollback button (i.e. to enforce his way in disputes) and it just seems that he thinks that adminship is a "status" in a "hierarchy" which you get for being a veteran editor or for valued contributions. Wrong. Adminship is a bit in the database which you get so you can serve the community better and help in things such as countering vandalism or determining consensus more easily, and doesn't grant you any status. I appreciate your contributions in articles, we also need people writing the actual encyclopaedia, but you don't need the tools at all. SalaSkan 14:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)