Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:50, 11 June 2007

DrKiernan

Voice your opinion (0/3/1); 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)

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)

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)

1. Support. DrKiernan has already contributed six featured articles, the quality of which suggest a professional background. 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 know 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)

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)
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.
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)

4. Oppose ~ Wikihermit _(HermesBot) 15:03, 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)

Neutral

1. Neutral - no real reason not to trust you with the tools, but you really should have more than just one-sentence answers to the questions. Tell us something about what you have done and why you want to be an admin. Give an example of a disagreement you have had that was resolved amicably. I !vote neutral pending better answers. --BigDT 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral and I suggest withdrawal because this is not going to pass. You're an excellent article writer, but one of the nasty ironies of this process is that article writing is not the main credential we are looking for. There needs to be a balance of interests in policy-related concerns, such as deletion discussions and patrolling, and not just on featured articles and page protection. That balance should be reflected in your intended use of sysop tools, which you did not state clearly. I usually tell editors who ask to return in a few months, but I'm not sure if adminship is best for you anyway: it may be a distraction from what you really enjoy. (Unfortunately, the days of "adminship is no big deal" seem to reside in the distant past.) YechielMan 14:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)