Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DrKiernan

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

[edit] DrKiernan

Closed as successful by Cecropia 13:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC) at (75/23/11); Scheduled end time 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)

I just want to come back on a couple of justifiable points made by some of the opposers, and as they are general points made by several, I shall make a response up here rather than replying individually.

On the issue of status and hierarchy, I would say this: All my edits are anonymous, so I don't really see how it is possible for me to acquire "status" either by becoming an admin, or even by contributing. Neither can I see how I can be part of a hierarchy when there isn't one. All users, whether they are six-year-old children or Harvard professors, have identical powers. The only thing I gain from wikipedia is free access to information, but, frankly, I have that already because I have access to large library and information resources through my work. OK, sure I don't have access to the details of Pokemon and Star Trek synopses, but when am I ever going to need access to that? Never. The main interaction is one of giving to wikipedia, both in terms of time and information. That in itself is what I gain from wikipedia: the self-satisfaction of doing a Good Thing - teaching others and sharing information.

On the issue of activity and "desire to be an admin", I would say this: Do I care if I am made an admin or not? Well, honestly I suppose, no, not really. yes, I do. I'm just trying to help out. If this goes belly-up and I am not made one, then so what? T there are still plenty of other ways to contribute. If this is reversed and I am made one then, fine, there's one more hand to the pumps.

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:

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

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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

1. access extra tools to improve my editing work, such as rollback,
2. help out occasionally when the desire strikes, and
3. help out when the backlog gets too big.
   

Areas of most interest to me are protection and deletion.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

Optional question by AldeBaer

6. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

A: Thank you for your question, please forgive me for not answering sooner, but I have been trying to think how I can best answer it to my advantage. Fortunately, a situation occurred yesterday which is a prime example of how someone with admin ability can help even when only using the powers during their normal editing. Read:

John Wayne (history)

User:InLikeErrol

User talk:InLikeErrol

[1] (final section)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:InLikeErrol reported by User:DrKiernan (Result:Indef blocked, sock evading block)

User talk:DrKiernan#John Wayne article, et al

and the associated contributions, etc.

This was a situation where I happened across the sockpuppet of a banned user quite by accident because he edited one of my FAs (George V - actually with quite a good point). If I had had admin powers, the situation could have been closed off much sooner, and I would not have needed to report it to AN/3RR, thus saving time and effort of both myself and other editors. DrKiernan 08:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so far. Just for clarification: The general aim of my question is to seperate you for a moment from your "contributing self" and provide you as a reader with an opportunity to speak freely about your favourite content, for better evaluation of your stance on Wikipedia in general. Another aspect is to establish whether candidates are able and willing to put themselves into our readership's position. To a degree, your answer fails to satisfy these admittedly difficult points, but I do not hold it against you, it's a deliberately open question after all. —AldeBaer 14:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Question by Miranda

7. Where's your userpage, and what happened to your archive of past discussions? Miranda 18:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A: Because I left in a fit of pique. There is no single comment below or elsewhere which is responsible for my action, nor is it particularly related to this process. However, the constant drip, drip of accusations of bad faith on my part, either here or anywhere, I find insulting. I have built almost my entire life, both private and professional, on acting for good, and it is no different here. I pride myself on being trusted, and I am accustomed to having trust. OK, pride is a sin, and for that I must do penance, but I have more than repaid that sin in the work that I do both here and in the real world.

You may, of course, alter your vote as a result of this admission, I will not blame you for that or hold a grudge. Ultimately, I think some of the opposition below is due to an age difference. Years from now, all of this will have been wiped out in a server crash, you will have new family and new friends, you will have new jobs and new responsibilities. You will look into the eyes of your children and come to realise just how frighteningly trivial these edits and these arguments are.

Having said that, the project itself and our contributions to it are not trivial. If we ensure the presentation of neutral information in a freely accessible format, we are actually working, even if only in a small way, to reduce ignorance and conflict. That in and of itself is of immense value.

Thank you ALL for your support (or your oppose). Thank you, in short, for caring. DrKiernan 08:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you. One can only hope that more people can take these sentiments to heart. El_C 08:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Question by wpktsfs

8 On your talk page, it says you have limited time, and that you rarely respond to talk page messages. If you were to become an admin, would you be able to respond quickly to the problems of the community if you are asked to fix or comment on an issue --wpktsfs 00:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A: Well, yes, I hope so. If a message left on my talk page obviously requires an answer, then I provide one. But most messages left, are of the "this is information that might interest you", or "thanks" or "by the way" type, it's those that I don't really feel the need to reply to. I suppose that might be seen as rude, but it really is only because of time! DrKiernan 09:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

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

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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)

   Obviously I mean admin-related contributions. If he has used the tools that a normal editor has to improve the encyclopedia there is no reason to believe thathe won't use the admin tools for the same. Even if he is not that active, an extra helping hand is better than none. Kamryn Matika 14:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   My question would be, how is he planning on using the admin tools? Looking at his contributions, there are no WP:AIV reports, or WP:RFPP reports (based on searching for "admin*" or "prot*" on each page of his contributions history, please point out if I have missed something) - why would he suddenly want to start blocking editors or protecting pages when he has shown no interest in those areas thus far? Rollback is available through scripts, as User:Moeron pointed out. I cannot see what administrative task he feels he needs the tools for, when he has made little to no use of available tools thus far. PGWG 16:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   And I would reply - he hasn't said that he wanted to 'suddenly start blocking editors'. He says that he wants the tools so that he can help out with deletion backlogs if and when the mood takes him. He's quite clearly aware of policy (6 FA's) and there has been no evidence provided to show that he is not trustworthy, so why not? Because he will only make one deletion a month and not a thousand? Give me a break. People have commitments other than Wikipedia. No one 'needs' the tools, but we should give them to everyone who we think can be trusted not to use them stupidly. Kamryn Matika 17:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   No, I haven't made any AIV requests, I haven't felt the need to. I think I have requested four semi-protects, [2][3][4][5], two declined, two done.

   I will admit I did not know "rollback" was available through scripts, I may investigate that. Thanks to moe for mentioning it. DrKiernan 17:22, 12 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 ^talk 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)
8. Support - Hardworking editor with 6 featured articles. May not become the most active sysop in history, but has enough experience to demonstrate an understanding of policy. To the opposers: please try to remember that adminship is no big deal, and that having as many admins as possible is a good thing for the project, even if they won't be active on a daily basis. Walton^talk 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Self-noms are freely permitted, and adminship is (supposedly) no big deal. Better someone who wants the tools and will use them in a limited fashion than another admin who wants the tools to reshape Wikipedia; we have enough of those. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Seems like a good candidate to me. Zaxem 00:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Not being able to edit Wikipedia extensively for real life reasons is no grounds to assume he would inadvertently (let alone purposefully) misuse the tools. Nor is it necessary for a candidate to demonstrate a need for the tools. What is going on in the oppose section is once more ridiculous. —AldeBaer 02:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Support, excellent editor. Everyking 05:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Support, don't see any substantial problems here. -- Visviva 05:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Protest support This RfA is going to fail but I'm banging my head against the wall when I read some of the opposes. I'd like to point out that a stated urgent need for the tools or a promise to be very active with them is certainly not a prerequisite for adminship. As has been said many times before, an admin who deletes one speedy candidate a day is still having a positive impact and since we're not desysoping admins whose activity is low I don't see why we should ask of future admins to be deleting, protecting, blocking and whatnot 24/7. Anyone who has the admin buttons knows that things like viewing deleted histories can help one make better, quicker decisions on various things and if an editor who is actively seeking to help the project can become more effective, then the whole project benefits. I don't think many admins could honestly say that the use they found for the tools matches exactly what they had in mind when they first applied. This doesn't matter: if you're a responsible editor, you'll use them responsibly for the good of the project. I feel DrKiernan is being treated unfairly and that some are failing to assume good faith: he tries to demonstrate his commitment to the project by pointing out his FA participation and this becomes "oppose, adminship is not a badge". Say what? He says "I won't be active because I still want to have time to do my usual editing" and this becomes "he doesn't care about admin duties and has no vision". The result is that the RfA will fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the candidate's capabilities and everything to do with him not jumping through the right hoops. In the end, we pass on a qualified candidate. How constructive. Pascal.Tesson 23:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Protest Support per Pascal.Tesson. I'm mildly annoyed that the candidate hasn't given much in the way of answers, but I'm even more annoyed with some of the ludicrous oppose reasons. Even if, in the extreme case, he were to only uses the tools once every six months to block a vandal that he noticed on his watchlist or in some other "small" way, who cares? That in and of itself is a service to Wikipedia. There are plenty of outstanding editors who are admins and active contributors, but have about one admin action a week. What's wrong with that? I sure can't see anything - we're better off than we would be if they didn't have the tools and the work didn't get done. Half of Wikipedia wants to oppose anyone who doesn't spend their entire day arguing at WP:AFD and the other half wants to oppose anyone who isn't a featured article machine. Both extremes are silly. This is obviously a trusted user. And as far as self-noms go, why not? I have had users email me before asking me to nominate them (an idea that I really don't like for a lot of reasons). If he were to have gone through that formality, would that make him a better admin candidate? Would he be better suited to use the tools? If he is a trusted user, he's a trusted user, regardless of whether or not anyone else nominates him. I don't really like the adminship reform discussions because everything proposed is worse than what we have right now ... but silliness like this convinces me something is necessary. --BigDT 23:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Changing from Oppose to Support Who cares if they rarely use the tools? One vandal blocked in one week is one less vandal. ~ Wikihermit 02:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
17. I like self-nominations. User is not going to abuse the tools and that's is all I care about. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Support 6 Featured Articles? No signs of abusive or incivil editing? No evidence that he would abuse the tools? Sounds good to me.....not using the tools is not a form of abuse. RxS 04:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Reluctant Support I still think little of the way that this user presented themselves for RFA. Its almot a dismissive approach, which is a big part suspect of why this RFA is going nowhere. Nonetheless, I am supporting, much out of protest a per the above comments. Also, as Yamamato Ichiro suggests, user will not abuse the priviledges. Still I have to ask why put yourself through an RFA, then barely even bother answering the questions or engaging the editors that you are asking for your support. It makes my support somewhat reluctant. —Gaff ^ταλκ 08:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry if I my comments come across as dismissive or contemptuous, they are not intended that way. They are short simply because I agree that adminship is "no big deal", and I like to keep my comments concise rather than verbose. Thanks for your support (everyone)! DrKiernan 08:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    I hope that this is not DrKiernan's final comment here or that his last post today is not what it seems. If DrKiernan has had enough, I do not blame anyone here, because one either has the layer of thick skin needed for Wikipedia or one doesn't. But I would like to point something out. Every one of DrKiernan's responses, both to the original questions and during the discussion, has been impeccably polite and to the point. He has dealt with substantive questions and particular criticisms specifically. This has always been DrKiernan's style, and it is one I use myself when being criticised. If it comes over as cool or distant, so what? Coolness and distance are not such bad qualities in a scholar. Some of the opposers have read things into DrKiernan's original answers that are simply not there (that he's dismissive, that he might overuse protection, that he wants an easy life, a badge); read again. And read some of his now several responses to objections, which have surely removed any false impression that he did not care enough. I think DrKiernan made a tactical mistake in not playing the game and providing the full and conventionally enthusiastic answers that would have forestalled the suspicions which arose; but his contributions to Wikipedia had already shown him to be deeply caring about the quality of Wikipedia articles. I sincerely hope therefore that he will continue with the project. If not, I can only offer my thanks for his work: his excellent articles remain, which people will be reading and learning from for a long time. qp10qp 15:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    This is one awfully long practical joke. —AldeBaer 09:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

20. Support (switched from oppose) - I'm beginning to agree that 'lack of need for the tools' is not a good reason to oppose in and of itself - DrKiernan does have some experience in XfD discussions, and contributing to 6FA's shows a dedication to the project and gives me the feeling that, even if he doesn't understand a specific policy, he'll be willing to try to learn what should be done. PGWG 13:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
21. Support (changed from oppose). As per comment added 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC) by me as a reply to my oppose (which has changed into this support). Several people have pointed out that I was not thinking entirely straight then, and was in a tense mood (due to exams, which are still going on by the way), so I have changed. Reasons by Yamamoto Ichiro, and Majorly and Pascal Tesson are all taken into account in this. Stwalkerster talk 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
22. Apparently pointless support as it appears another editor has been driven off. I do love the "no need for the tools/you must be an active admin" argument. It makes perfect sense because of course we only have so many admin bits to give out, and by refusing them to trustworthy committed editors who would occasionally help clear the backlogs, we make sure the tiny supply we still have left doesn't run out and that the backlogs are truly enormous and a challenge worthy of that perfect candidate when they do come along. Yomangani^talk 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Six featured articles? Wow! Great work, and good luck with this. Majorly (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
24. Support. The primary question remains, "do you trust this editor?" I see absolutely no reason not to. Excellent contribs and all round attention to quality. Of the many bad arguments put forth on RfAs, "no clear need for the tools" has to be the worst. Marskell 17:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
25. Support I see a good quality editor here. Pascal.Tesson and BigDT have given good reasons to support this user. Acalamari 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
26. Support. I'm sorry to come late to this; I usually avoid this room like the plague because of the effect I've seen it have on good editors like Dr Kiernan. I've had nothing but good interaction with this editor on many FACs and FARs, and I don't find any of the reasons for Opposing to be convincing. Wiki needs more good admins, not just more admins, and participation in a given area of Wiki isn't all that counts towards making a good admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
27. Support What Yomangani said, only with the hope that it's not so apparently pointless. If DrK is indeed an academic as s/he presents, then Wikipedia needs more such admins. Especially supportive of the comment that areas like the Pokémon and Trek sections will not take up much of his/her attention. -- Yamara 22:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
28. I don't agree with all his positions, but everything I see concerning this editor speaks of high quality. El_C 03:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
29. Support A great editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
30. Support due to his excellent contributions to the project. CLA 08:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
31. Support I have been explanied to about his large gap in edits. Because of the conclusion he gave me on my talk, I will support him.Politics rule 12:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
32. Weak support per Wikipedia:Administrators#No big deal. I changed my vote from oppose to support because of the clarifying answers above, which got some misconceptions out of the way. SalaSkan 14:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
33. Support I've changed my position on this as DrKiernan elaborated further on the questions and his/her intentions. I don't think there is a reason o oppose. This user will remain a valuable contributor whether an admin or not. --Javit 14:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
34. Support Come on people, this is getting ridiculous. All of us are spending their valuable free time here at this project, someone wants (earnestly) to help, and some of you want to deny him this fabulous opportunity becuase he can't demonstrate the need for the tools? ...let me add that I feel almost tempted to whack some of the opposers. Lectonar 14:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
35. Weak support While I'd still rather see a little more genuine interest in helping out with admin duties, like a desire to help clear out backlogs, the expanded statement above helps to alleviate concerns and shed a little more light on the candidate's views. He'd still only use the admin tools to "do good". Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
36. Support because the opposes annoy me. Fine editor and is unlikely to abuse tools. —Xezbeth 17:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Excellent editor, discusses civilly; note that I disagree with his stance on main page protection, but well.... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. An excellent editor; mature, intelligent, professional. Being a vandalism fighter has never been a necessary attribute for RfA; indeed, a focus on that can often be problematic. His argument in favor of semi-protecting featured articles that are on the main page seems a very minor issue to oppose over. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
39. WILL NOT MISUSE THE TOOLS which after all, is all that matters. What is up with the opposes? Not keen enough to push little buttons? Not bloodthirsty enough? Not power-hungry enough? Gee, all those things look like big plus's to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. I see no reason for concern, and DrKiernan has been a strong contributor to Wikipedia. The issue is supposed to be, as KillerChihuahua points out, whether or not someone will abuse the tools, not whether they'll spend all day combing the recent changes list and hitting the revert button. Admins who are actual editors, rather than vandal-reverters, bring an important and helpful perspective to the mix of admins. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
41. Support --MichaelLinnear 22:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
42. Support I see no reason why not. Mature and capable editor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
43. Support Another admin, whether the powers are used every six months or daily, can only be a good thing (not least the fact that losing this excellent editor to admin work would be a shame), and it is extremely clear this user is not going to misuse the tools given to him. RHB - Talk 23:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
44. Support - I would trust this candidate with the tools. I would like to add a reminder to use admin tools to help out in unrelated areas like clearing backlogs, to be cautious when using admin tools in areas you are active in (avoid controversial actions in areas you edit heavily), and to continue the excellent article writing. Carcharoth 00:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
45. Support My main criteria for adminship are trust, maturity, civility, ability as an editor, and ability to interact with people. I think this candidate does well on all of these. I expect him to be a good admin. Crum375 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
46. Support for encyclopedic contributions, and per "no big deal" movement. –Outriggr § 01:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
47. support Is an excellent editor. I would have been willing to nominate if I had been asked. Claims that the editor does not understand policy are unfounded given the large number of FAs under the editor's belt. Criticism that the answers to questions are "too short" is disturbing- are we now opposing good candidates because they don't follow rituals to every detail? Similarly criticism that there is no "need for the tools" is also hard to understand- even if a user will use the tools rarely or does not "need" them per se if the project will benefit from giving them the tools I don't see why we shouldn't give them to the user. JoshuaZ 02:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
48. Support 6 FAs? The sort of admin we need. FeloniousMonk 02:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
49. Support I trust this excellent contributor and am sure he would be mature, civil and steady administrator. His commitment to the project shines through his work, and I am sure that he will use the tools appropriately. --Slp1 02:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
50. Support candidate shows they are a good 'pedia builder and is genuinely concerned at how said 'pedia develops.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
51. SupportThis user has undergone a tough few days. I would still enjoy an answer to question number 8, however, I might be away by the time that this RfA closes and I get my answer to question 8. I feel this user has undergone a transformation these past days, as has my vote. I feel that he has further explained his stance, has gone beyond the call of duty, and will make a fine admin. Willing to change to support after answer to question 8. note: I originally voted oppose. My reasoning was: per the first sentence in the answer to question one. We need admins, but we need active admins. I am now neutral with these comments: Although I am still concerned about why he would not show intention to use the tools actively, I think the amount of edits he has is fair justification as to why he should be considered for the tools. --wpktsfs 04:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
52. Weak support for the six FA's as FM said. I just wish this applicant showed a bit more enthusiasm in his application. Maybe salesmanship isn't required, but it would be nice if he seemed like he'd love doing this job. Orangemarlin 04:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
53. Support. With 6 FAs, thus trustworthy and having a good grasp of the main goal of WP, plus the willing to help in administrative work - this is the best mixture needed for a good admin in this project. Noon 11:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
54. Support. An impressive, trustworthy editor. Ceoil 11:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
55. Support I noticed the good job the user has done in maintaining Portal:Biography, and excellent article writing. He is a valuable contributor who should have the tools. The issues with WP:MPFAP don't concern me enough to vote neutral or oppose, with positives far outweighing any concerns. --Aude (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
56. Support He certainly helped those articles out, and although he has had disagreements, he has handled them maturly and has not resulted in an edit war. --LtWinters 17:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
57. Support In part based on FM and KC's comments, in part because many of the oppose votes are utterly illogical. Too many folks are acting as if the tools are a gift bestowed upon a user by the gods of Wikipedia, a belief that is utter nonsense. As for the "not enough knowledge of policies" tripe: if you have no knowledge of policy, you simply cannot write 6 FA's. Oh, one other point: what's this "no clear need for the tools" nonsense? What is one supposed to do to demonstrate this need? •Jim62sch• 17:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
58. Weak support After going through his contribs, userpages, and thoroughly reading his answers to questions, I highly doubt that he will abuse the tools. He may not be perfect, but no admin is. I get an honest vibe from him, and I enjoy his truthful answers to questions, although he "beats around the bush" for question 6.  hmwith  talk 17:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
59. Support Oppose section is turning into a witch hunt. Look at the user's actions and don't read so much into the responses. There are some horrible editors who can charm your feathers off. Talk is cheap. ~ Infrangible 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
60. Support per RxS and per KillerChihuahua. ElinorD (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
61. Support. He's taken the initiative to deal with the "John Wayne troll", a returning vandal. He's dealt with that problem user is a firm but fair manner. While I see some oppose the candidate because he hasn't dealt with vandalism enough, I think that dealing with problem users is more difficult that simple vandalism patrolling. There are many needs for the "mop and bucket" besides cleaning up "Chris smells like poop". This user would make a good admin, IMO. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
62. Support. Balancing large number of oppose sentiments with which I disagree. Apparently good-faith and trustworthy users with sufficient breadth of experience should be encouraged, regardless of activity level. ∴ here…♠ 21:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
63. Support - I had no big issues and you've handled this RFA particularly well. Good luck. The Rambling Man 21:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
64. Support It's not a big deal, he won't abuse the tools, six featured articles... Evilclown93_(talk) 22:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
65. Support - only occasional use of the tools is fine so long as I can trust they won't abuse them. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
66. Support - I have changed from oppose because, after reviewing his contributions, his effort, and his need for the told more carefully, I believe that he would make a good administrator. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 23:17, 16 June 2007 UTC)
67. Support - DrKiernan is a solid contributor. We need admins like him with strong editorial experience. Majoreditor 01:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
68. Support Even if he doesn't use the tools frequently, there's low risk of him abusing them.--Chaser - T 02:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
69. Support I believe the net results of this user having the tools will be positive. A demonstrated need is a ridculous reason to oppose, because any user who has shown that they can be trusted with them should ultimately benefit the project. Viridae^Talk 08:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
70. Support, but please enable an e-mail address. Peacent 13:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support and for pointing that out. I have (re-)enabled e-mail. DrKiernan 06:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
71. Support. "No need for the tools" is no reason to oppose, we need all the admins we can get, even if they don't use their tools constantly. The candidate wouldn't abuse or misuse the tools, so he should be given the mop. --Rory096 23:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
72. Support. Though I have some reservations, SlimVirgin has spoken, so... – Gurch 23:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
73. Support Answered my questions and has good enough experience with the article writing process with six featured FAs. Miranda 01:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
74. Support Adminship is no big deal. This editor has improved Wikipedia by adding to the encyclopedic content of articles, which I believe is a good background for an admin. Gandoman 02:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
75. Support For reasons I have expressed at length in other discussions and which are at least cursorily summarized on my RfA guidelines page, I agree, of course, with Pascal on the apparently and unfortunately overarching need for tools issue, and although I am not altogether unconcerned about the user's somewhat capricious actions during this RfA (although I would observe that, far from being pernicious, an editor's suggesting that he might leave/take a break/something else in view of his being burned out/irked/whatever is quite fine; it is certainly preferred to his being abrupt with other users and acting irrationaly or disruptively, as so often some do), I am convinced that he is possessed on the whole of sound judgment, a cordial demeanor, and (at least usually) a deliberative nature, such that I feel comfortable concluding that the net effect on the project of DK's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 04:03, 18 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 Wikipedia: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 free encyclopedia 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)

   • Then we'll have to agree to differ on what's going on at NOPRO/MPFAP because there has been a steady stream of change over time which has resulted in major changes of the document, some of which have been rolled out over the past few days as the greater community has come to realise what's been happening. As you now know, these changes have not been put before the community in any reasonable way; no Village Pump communications, no WP:AN messages. While I can understand where you're coming from on this and appreciate that what you have done was done in good faith and with the interests of the project at heart, your approach to-date has not been the best and your recognition and support of WP:PILLARS has been flawed in my opinion. Furthermore, your exhortations below to a person commenting on your RfA to "strike" their opinons has been somewhat disconcerting, to say the least - Alison ☺ 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   • The way that Salaskan had written his comments could have been mistaken to mean "he also says he wants the tools primarily…to enforce his way in disputes",[6] which is obviously neither what he meant nor what I said. Perhaps, I should have asked him to redraft them rather than strike them. I certainly meant no offence to him (or you) in responding to his post, and apologise if my reply gave any such inadvertent offence. DrKiernan 17:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   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) Switching to support

   • I have contributed to well over a hundred XfD as shown here: [7] DrKiernan 13:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
   • Last three vandal reverts here: [8][9][10] 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)

   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: [11] [12] and in the deletion debates, e.g. [13] [14][15]. 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 ^ταλκ 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)

   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)

   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) change to support Stwalkerster talk 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Not to get in the way of you holding whatever opinion you will, but opposing because somebody may not be super-active as an admin seems questionable. Some folks could be great as admins, when they are around, even if they are often occupied with jobs and family, etc. I understand that there may be other reasons for your oppose as well. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   "...and are willing to be 'handed the mop' of constantly cleaning up the encyclopedia..." Constantly? Wow. Some people have lives you know... :) And btw, difficult page moves can only be done by admins. If an article he watches was being vandalised, only admins can protect it. And only admins can block spammers. All those things are improving his editing work. Majorly (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Ok, fair enough. By 'constantly', I mean a significant portion of time spent on Wikipedia, and I understand that point about active admins. It's just we seem to be in a shortage of admins (looking at backlogs) at the moment, and I was thinking that active admins are what we need. Mind - not-so-active admins are better than no admins. Stwalkerster talk 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

2. 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)

   Just like it may happen with your own oppose, for that matter, Wikihermit. —AldeBaer 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   Do some of the support votes give any better reasons for their position? "Excellent contributor" is not very detailed, nor is "Seems like a good editor to me." Do any of these sound anymore convincing? Per above was in reference to Alison's reason for opposing. I've changed to support anyhow, after reading over Pascal's reasonings for supporting. ~ Wikihermit 02:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Note to closing bureaucrat: Kmweber (talk · contribs) has been leaving this very same opinion on just about every self-nom. Pascal.Tesson 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Strong 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)

   Oh good grief! Better get on a mass-welcoming spree to get that magic number ;) Seriously, why should he show a need, and user talk edits, really, come on! :) Majorly (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   No you come on. Your actions are starting to resemble that of a troll. Seriously, people have a right to object. Okay, this act is very annoying. And candidates should show some sort of need, for instance one who wishes to help fight off vandalism needs to be an admin to block vandals. He clearly stated in his answer to the first question he does not intend to be very active, thus it would seem tools aren't required. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 13:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   What is your objection? Please tell me why he should have a need? And no, I'm not a troll. I'm trying to give some obviously clueless people who clearly know nothing about what it is to be an admin a push towards the light. However, what I say will probably go in one ear and out the other... :P Majorly (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   My vote is now strong oppose considering it appears the candidate has left the project; if he hasn't left then I sppose he's pulling one hell of a stunt by faking his own withdrawal from Wikipedia, in hopes of getting a sympathy vote. Either way I'm now strongly opposed. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

   My action yesterday has caused several people to oppose, understandably (see ww2, G1ggy and Steel below), so, no, it wasn't a stunt. DrKiernan 14:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

   I apologize for calling it a stunt, however I thought at least one or two users might have switched to support to encourage you to return. I am, however, happy you decided to stay with the project. I also hope that you will be a candidate again in a few months, as I feel you will be able to learn from this. Who knows, you might even get my support then. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks, if you do, I'll support Red Sox! ;-) DrKiernan 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

4. 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 ^{Let's talk | done} 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose per question one. Miranda 19:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Switched to support due to answering question. Miranda 01:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

   Strong Oppose per questions (especially #1). The snapping at constant disagreement and questioning of the opposers (especially on a self nom) is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC) - Addendum: The behavior on WP:NOPRO/WP:YESPRO with the attempting to misconstrue consensus by "categorizing" people's comments and attempt to show them in support of a policy which they never actually edited. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Switching to neutral. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:46, 15 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)
     • I mean the need to disagree and question quite a few of the opposer's comments. I've rewritten my oppose to make it more clear...also added something else. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
       • Your claim that I deliberately attempted to misconstrue consensus is demonstrably untrue. The editors either placed themselves in the table or they were placed there on the basis of explicit comments made and signed by them on the talk page. Their edits are clear for anyone to see in the talk page history, and on the discussion page itself, as are my actions: "I have categorised editors expressing an opinion on this discussion page since the completion of the data-gathering exercise in December 2006." I challenge you to provide an example of an editor who was placed in an inappropriate category at the time that the table was deleted, or an editor whose opinion, as expressed on the discussion page since the completion of the study, was not included in the table. If you can provide such an example, then I would apologise to that editor, and should the table ever be restored, I would be happy to see them included in it. I have said again and again, and I will continue to say it: All my edits to that page were done in good faith, and with what I thought was the consensus of the community. DrKiernan 06:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
         • Whether or not the individuals support the policy or not isn't the question. The problem I see with it is that your categorization has absolutely no proof whatsoever that these individuals do in fact agree with you. Those who added themselves I've no quarrel with, but what about adding people who never contributed (who he later removed) and false dates of contribution (he actually only contributed 3 times back in November, and his comments hardly aligned with one side or the other)? Even if all these people did express their opinions in line with what you said, without diffs or something, there's no way to prove it. I suppose my main issue is that by gathering scattered opinions in one place like that, it shows a false sense of solidarity in opinions, in the same way a legitimate poll would, in fact, unless someone diggs through the page and its history, from a brief glance, it does look like a poll. That's why I say you attempted to falsely show a consensus. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
           • Thank you for coming back with two specific examples. Pudeo's views are expressed here: Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection/Petition, which derives from here: Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection#Petition. Darthgriz was added by me to the "deprecate protection" category on the basis of comments listed on the talk page of 17:42, 6 February 2007, and then removed by me on the basis of comments listed on the talk page of 17:57, 6 February 2007, for the reason as detailed in my edit summary: "we don't know where he (sic) stands". I saw these comments by reading through the talk page rather than the edit history, I was not aware that they were in fact added by Rlevse, not by the users themselves[16]. I apologise to Darthgriz unreservedly for both calling her a "he" and initially misrepresenting her views as in favour of the current policy. DrKiernan 06:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose per question one and Demon. --Fredrick day 20:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   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. Changed to Neutral--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   When the individual is benefited, the community benefits from it too. If it makes the individual's job much easier, freeing him up to do more (for the community), what's really wrong here? And I find it a little amusing when you oppose saying he just needs admin tools to make his job easier whereas a lot of others opposed saying he doesn't need tools at all. Maybe it's just the way you put it and I am interpreting it wrong... can you please clarify? Thanks. - TwoOars 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   I do not say that he needs the tools for editing; he says it. Given that I do not believe that this is a valid reason for needing the tools, I agree with the editors who say that he does not need them. No conflict.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   Ok, there may be no conflict, maybe I misunderstood. But anyway, you ignored my question. You said Adminship is for the benefit of the community, not the individual. How does it not help wikipedia if the adminsiship helps the individual? - TwoOars 06:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   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)

   Should he? I didn't really have a "clear vision". Why can't you just let him help out where he wants to without hassling for specifics? Majorly (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose - I disagree completely with the changes that you have made to Wikipedia: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)

6. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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)

7. Statement and answers to questions show too little substance for me to approve. TML 01:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose The nom and questions do not show me why this user should have adminship. Captain panda 02:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   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 ^talk 07:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral

   • 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". Wikipedia 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)

   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 and such instead of for helping out 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)

   • I do not wish to enforce my way in disputes or acquire status, as I have already pointed out. I would appreciate it if you would strike those comments. Thanks. DrKiernan 15:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   Salaskan, where did you get the idea that he thinks that adminship is a "status" in a "hierarchy" which you get for being a veteran editor or for valued contributions? I can't see where DrKiernan hinted at anything remotely like that and I don't think you're assuming good faith. Pascal.Tesson 05:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose I think that the candidate should answer the questions better, and he barley represented himself in the opening. And I think we need more of a vandal-fighter, not to mention that the user stated "I do not intend to be particularly active. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 21:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose, vague answers to questions and does not understand what adminship is all about. I don't see any need for him to get the tools, lacks of experience anyway. Rollback? Twinkle has rollback, you don't need the tools for that. Terence 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose, I see no reason to give admin tools to someone who is apathic about using them. --Agamemnon2 16:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I can only respond, in answer to both you and JetLover, that the project very nearly lost an active editor, which would have been shame; if this vote goes the way it's going, then the project will lose an active administrator, wouldn't that be a shame as well? DrKiernan 14:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per actions on WP:NOPRO/WP:YESPRO, which does not indicate to me that candidate understands consensus or discussion. Riana ⁂ 07:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    Clarification - not the RfDs, but Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection. Riana ⁂ 18:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    Strongly, per Riana. Daniel 07:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Not sure any more. Daniel 04:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

13. Sorry, not at this time per answers provided in your nomination.--VS ^talk 10:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    (Just for the sake of clarity: the next two comments relate to a now deleted opposition by User:Politics rule and not to VS's.) Pascal.Tesson 14:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    With due respect here, DrKiernan has not stated that he has left WP and until then, I suggest we give him the benefit of the doubt until we hear otherwise. A lot of people - admins included - have had their user pages deleted. It's no biggie. Finally, we all take wikibreaks. I'm on one now myself. Thankfully, the GodKing in his infinite kindness, has yet to dock my admin's salary and they have yet to introduce time clocks here :) - Alison ☺ 01:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    Bangs head against wall... Politics rule, I'm not sure you understand that we are lacking in qualified admins. Whether he's active once a month or once every two years does not make any difference. We have tons of people that are admins yet we're not desysoping them because a trusted user remains a trusted user and when and if they decide to return they'll be an asset. I'm a fellow Wikipedian, I've looked and hard at this and my conclusion is that maybe you should thing nice and hard too. Pascal.Tesson 04:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

14. Strong Oppose Though a good editor with FAs to his credit, by his own words, this self-nom does not really seem to have his heart in being an admin (see below) and what will he do with the admin tools when he can achieve virtually everything he wants to do without being an admin. Though he says he only edits anonymously, it would seem important, as a potential admin, to edit under ones name. I would also expect a RfA to be open with everyone and tell us about himself but instead he has no information on his user page and deletes his talk page edits which for me usually implies he has something to hide. I even see that he has now put in a request to delete his usertalk page here which seems very odd indeed. ww2censor 04:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    You seem to be forgetting that almost all of us (actually not me) are editing anonymously. I believe your real name is not ww2censor and given the harassment that a few admins have suffered off-wiki it's perfectly ok to have minimal personal info on editors. The right to anonymity is a long standing principle of Wikipedia. As for "having something to hide", please remember to assume good faith and trust me: there was nothing on his userpage that was of even remote interest to this RfA. Pascal.Tesson 04:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    Perhaps I misunderstood the use of the term anon user Pascal.Tesson. Yes, many of us use a username that is not our real name but I assumed anon user to mean editiing as an IP user not logged in even if one is a registered user. Oh, I do AGF but as I said lack of info implies something to hide, I did not say it means there is something to hide. However I also think this RfA does not have enough experience either. ww2censor 05:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    This misundertanding is my fault, I should have said "pseudonymously". DrKiernan 06:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

15. I oppose per this. and per Ww2censor. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose for weak answers and insufficient involvement. Edit history isn't impressive. Why does this person need admin tools? Doczilla 07:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    Edit history isn't impressive? He has six featured articles. Do you have more than that? There may be valid reasons to oppose this RfA, but I don't think edit history is one of them. We're here to build a credible, informative encyclopedia and FA's get that done. That's what we're here to do, to build the best articles that we possibly can. I also notice that since I voiced my opinion on your oppose vote, you've qualified it somewhat. Perhaps next time you might think of indenting your changes below my response. CLA 08:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose per lack of understanding of policy [17] and concerns over the approach used to change WP:NOPRO expressed by Alison, ^demon, and a few others. I do not associate myself with any other opposes. – Steel 13:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    In practice, sysops delete talk pages frequently under the right to vanish. U1 is a bit murky, too.--Chaser - T 02:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose per Steel and Doczilla -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 02:04, 16 June 2007 UTC)

    Changed to Support after reviewing the users contributions and need for the tools more thoroughly.

18. Oppose Concerns about user's experience relevant to the admin tools. Mentions reverting and blocking vandalism, the former can be done without the tools and the latter requires a good experience of warning vandals and raising reports on AIV (I see very little of either). This coupled with no strong plan for when the tools will be used (backlogs is too vague), means that I must oppose. TigerShark 13:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    Must oppose? —AldeBaer 14:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry, what point are you trying to make? Thanks TigerShark 18:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    Xe's asking why you must oppose. You don't have to oppose anyone. See this essay - basically, why can't trusted users be admins? Majorly (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    OK, but it just seems like a pointlessly pedantic interpretation of my phrasing. Not sure exactly what it has to do with the "essay" (bit short to classify it as an essay), but in terms of trusted, trusted to do or not do what exactly? I don't trust the user to correctly use the tools due to a lack of a experience in the relevant areas, plus the the protection discussion is of some concern. I don't have a strong reason to believe that they will exactly abuse them, but that doesn't mean the won't misuse them - I'll trust them not to do that once I have seen a track-record in the relevant areas. TigerShark 07:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

19. Oppose. My only interactions with this user have been negative. --- RockMFR 21:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, our only interactions have been here and here, where on each occasion you have made a joke, and I have responded in a similar way. Is the exchange of humour a negative? DrKiernan 10:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose. This editor's responses above don't explain how they will decide whether or when to use their admin tools, other than to point us back to policies without explaining how they interpret those policies. The answers given don't overcome my initial misgivings about adding another pro-deletion editor to the admin ranks. Further, the editor's talk page header indicates they don't consider it necessary to reply to most talk page comments, and they don't have email enabled. To me, those are both major accountability issues when it comes to an admin. With their not feeling compelled to explain their actions on their talk page or in email and with not being open to recall, I must, in good conscience, oppose adding anything to this editor's toolkit that can't be undone by an "ordinary" Wikipedian like me. Odds are, this editor would preform as an admin within the bounds, but this isn't about playing the odds. If you want "the keys," Dr., demonstrate that you'll "drive the car" with the utmost restraint. Until then, continue your good editorial work. --Ssbohio 00:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

    Ah, so then I assume that there is a mold into which an editor must be poured so that he fits some vision of the perfect admin? Conformity for conformity's sake doesn't impress me much: honesty, on the other hand, does. •Jim62sch• 19:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, I have said above in response to a question that I do not usually reply to user talk page comments because in general they do not require a reply. I always reply to article talk page comments, and any comments that require an explanation or an answer. I have (re-)enabled e-mail. I haven't said anywhere that I am any more or less pro-deletion than other editors. You may see some "keep" and "merge" votes at XfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew York, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bessarabian Soviet Socialist Republic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corpsewood, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key of the Gulf Railroad, andWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Emily Dickinson. DrKiernan 10:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

21. Oppose due to shenanigans during (but not on) this RfA. Everyone has a bad wikiday every once in awhile, but doing it during ones RfA might draw unnecessary attention to oneself that might not have been received otherwise. ➪HiDrNick! 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

    Uh, what's wrong with correcting the placement of a comma? If you mean the edit summary, why does it matter? --Rory096 23:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

    I wasn't referring to the edit, but the edit summary. It was part of the candidate's "I'm leaving the project... psyche!" incident from a few days ago, also illustrated by the diff provided by N96 below. Let me put it in some context. I'm an avid contract bridge player and a club director (basically, a referee). Bridge has some really eccentric rules to govern irregularities when something strange happens at the table; say, for example, a player leads out of turn, makes an insufficient bid, or drops his hand on the table for everyone to see. The penalties in the game for these actions are sometimes quite severe. Now no one thinks that an experienced player would lead out of turn to gain an unfair advantage -- that would be cheating -- still, irregularities must be penalized according to the rules to ensure fairness to all the other players, even though we all know that it was just an accident.

    Now, to be clear, this is an analogy. RfA is not a game and the candidates are not players. Still, the extent to which the RfA process works (or doesn't work, if that's your thing) can only be counted upon if RfAs are held under mostly ordinary circumstances. DrKiernan's choice to leave the project mid-RfA, however briefly, has made this RfA a very irregular one indeed. It surely drew quite a bit of attention to his RfA that would not have otherwise been received had the irregularity not occurred. I do not allege or mean to imply that his actions were deliberate to serve this end, but the unusual advantage nevertheless remains. Hence, I oppose, and hope to see another, more regular RfA run for the candidate in the future.

22. Adminship is denied for controversial reasons. — N96 (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
23. Unfortunately, I must oppose on the grounds of temperment and knowledge of policy related to admin tools. I have no qualms about his knowledge related to articlespace, but the admin tools are more than that and I have reservations. Sorry; I hope this does not impact your editing whichever way it turns out. -- nae'blis 04:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
24. Oppose. I have remained out of this as I had no strong opinion and didn't buy the 'why does he need the tools' opposition. But what makes me oppose now is DrKiernan's apparent volatility as expressed in the departure and swift return. For my part, steadiness and the ability to stay calm under pressure are vital to an admin. DrKiernan was put under pressure during this RfA but should have anticipated this: lots of good editors get hauled over the coals on an RfA and I think probably it needs a certain amount of what the heck to survive the process. If DrKiernan can't take a deep breath and ride out the RfA, then I have doubts about whether s/he can be the calm, measured presence an admin will sometimes need. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 12:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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) Striking neutral --BigDT 23:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

1. 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)

   This is one of the more annoying problems with RFA. Some people oppose anyone who doesn't need the tools. Others oppose anyone who does need the tools because they aren't active enough writing. Really, the only question is whether or not we trust him not to abuse the tools. --BigDT 17:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral "Need for the tools" is not a very strong argument for opposition, but the answers to the questions are rather dissatisfying and convey a lack of interest or even apathy toward administrative duties. Being an admin is not about having extra powers but having extra duties, and I am uncomfortable supporting someone who views it otherwise. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning towards oppose I am very unimpressed by the answers given to questions above. I understand that for me to participate in an RFA, I need to review the contributions, but generally RFA candidates provide answers to these questions that help guide those considering their request for the tools. This candidate seems almost too put out to bother giving much at all in answering the questions. As far as "rollback" goes, there are plenty of add-ons for editing Wikipedia. I have Lupin Anti-Vandal tool and twinkle and it gives me plenty of rollback capacity and makes me very effective at vandal fighting. Maybe something will convince me to support this candidate, as the week progresses, but its not looking good. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral I wish to applaud the candidate for the work he is involved with on [WP:MPFAP]], however I too am a bit concerned about his lack of attention to his answers here and his appreciation for a fuller range of admin duties. JodyB _talk 19:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral Per Gaff and the not that bothered attitude I read in Q1. You are strong in areas and I'm trying to WP:AGF hence not opposing. However I disagee strongly with comments by Arkyan that an oppose based on need for the tools is not a strong reason. Given that adminship is solely about getting some extra buttons then a lack of need for them is a very valid argument. To suggest otherwise seems to indicate that the reason for adminship is something other than a few buttons to help - because it's a medal or reward or something, which it isn't. Pedro |  Chat  20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   For the record, I don't believe that anyone really needs the admin tools, and refusing someone because it doesn't seem like they need them seems silly. However when a user's answers demonstrate a lack of desire or intention to use them, then yes, that's worth witholding support. I think the difference is largely semantic, though :) Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral - I trust that you would do a good job, but the mutiple opposes have a point. I recommend you ask for this RFA to be closed early. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
   • Thank you for your and YechielMan's suggestion, but I withdrew from a harsh process once before [18], and I later came to regret it [19]. Consequently, I would prefer to see this out to the end. DrKiernan 06:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
5. I'm changing my vote from Oppose to Neutral because by the optional questions he has shown he understands what the job of an admin is.--James, La gloria è a dio 13:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
6. I realized that I might have acted too harsh in my previous oppose, and apologize for it. Points made by Alison and other editors are slightly concerning, but you do seem intent on improving the encyclopedia. --Dark Falls ^talk 08:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral While I'm still not comfortable supporting (per my reasoning in my oppose), I no longer feel compelled to strong oppose anymore. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral I am convinced to withdraw my oppose vote by the change in the candidate's answers, and by arguments put forward by other editors. But cannot go as far as supporting.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral While the user does seem to have most of their editing capabilities together, the answers to the questions don't quite do it for me. Jmlk17 05:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Neutral For reasons Above. Dfrg.msc 23:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Neutral. It's far too much for me to oppose someone who's written six featured articles, but the vague answers and the lack of indication to understanding of admin-related policies is a little concerning, so I'm not sure. - Zeibura^(talk) 18:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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.