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

Drilnoth[edit]

(83/2/0); Scheduled to end 12:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC) – closed as successful by —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Drilnoth (talk · contribs) – Drilnoth has been a Wikipedian since last October, and in a short time he's proven himself to be a great asset to the community. I first learned about him from his userscripts which have helped me to be more productive, and since then I've come to appreciate much of the other work he does around here. He peer reviews articles, he does new page patrolling, he started a great Wikiproject, he uses the bejesus out of Auto Wiki Browser, and he's quickly become very familiar with the intricacies of our policies. Most importantly, I've found him to have a cool head, responding civilly and appropriately even when provoked. He's already been granted rollback privileges, and I have no doubt he'll a great administrator – Quadell (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by BOZ: I first noticed Drilnoth within his first few days of editing, as he jumped right into D&D articles. At the time, I was trying and failing to revitalize the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, and I saw right from the start how much hard work he was willing to put into what he was working on. I had some chats with him, and I'd like to think that I kind of mentored him, molded and guided his drive and determination as we cleaned up and revitalized the D&D WikiProject together. Not only did he help me clean it up, but he introduced ideas into the project that I would never have conceived of alone - just take a look at what the project page looks like today compared to what it looked like in October and understand that he did most of that work single-handedly (and some of those templatey things on the October version are merely "ghosts" of what is there now, and were not there at the time). In the relatively short time since then, I have seen him really grow as an editor. He has learned how to get an article through the GA process with me, and become quite adept at fixing up articles needing TLC. He has taken on functions beyond his roots with the D&D project by doing recent changes patrol, fixing minor errors on numerous pages, helping to coordinate efforts with mutliple WikiProjects, welcoming new users, reviewing articles for GA, repairing templates, you name it. I can really appreciate him because like me he puts the ideas of civility, consensus, collaboration, and the five pillars as his top priorities. I can't think of an editor on Wikipedia who I'd trust more with the tools (myself included) who doesn't already have them.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both; I accept. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I’m primarily interested in doing some of the less-controversial maintenance tasks. Having administrator tools will help me move free images to the Commons, and I’ll also work on the deletion backlog for that task. I’ll probably do some work at TfD and CfD, but I doubt that I’ll do many article deletions because I really fall under the “inclusionist” category.
I may also try to keep some of the backlogs in check at WP:RPP, WP:RM, WP:PERM, CAT:PER, and perhaps Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old.
Finally, I have some experience with templates and user scripts, so I’ll probably do some more work with them with the ability to edit protected pages. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel that my various user scripts are the most important thing I’ve done for Wikipedia, because they help multiple other users to improve the wiki. After that I’d say that the changes to ((Notability)) which I coordinated were important… the template was really starting to get too long. I think that the various Good articles that I’ve helped promote have helped quite a bit, increasing article quality on relatively obscure topics such as Dragons of Despair. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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: Of course I have; what Wikipedian hasn’t? :) Most of these have just been minor disputes that were resolved in a manner satisfactory to all participants. There is also one larger conflict which I’ve been involved in, that between the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject and User:Gavin.collins. For the most part I have used the dispute resolution system to help in resolving this dispute, including a request for comment. During my first few weeks of editing I didn’t quite follow the guidelines because I wasn’t aware that they existed, but I don’t think that anything was "out of line"... this might have been close, but as I said I just didn’t know how to resolve disputes at that time.
Regardless, I do not have any intention of using administrator abilities to gain any sort of "advantage" in this dispute or any other. I may protect pages if there is edit warring, but I won’t use blocking, deletion, rollback, etc., in order to handle it; if I think that such is warranted, I’d ask at WP:AN or WP:ANI so that there is outside input. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Letsdrinktea
4. A user creates an article on some corporation. The article for the corporation was deleted via AfD 2 years ago because it was not notable, however the user claims that it is notable now. You find that the article is a substantial copy of the original, and someone has tagged it for speedy deletion under CSD G4. What would you do (would you delete it or not)?
A: Well, I probably wouldn't be looking at such an article in CAT:CSD anyway (see my comments on deletion above). If I was, I would look at just how much of a copy it was and then do at least a quick web search to try and find sources to find out whether or not the topic is, indeed, now notable. If it is I'd add the refs to the bottom of the page and remove the speedy tag to allow the article to be fixed up some more, and I'd also restore the previous;y deleted history for GFDL compliance. If the company still appeared to be non-notable, I'd probably userfy it to allow for improvements since the creator said that the company was now notable (maybe most of the refs are offline, for example), and delete the redirect. I believe that all of this would be in line with CSD G4, which says "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted.". As I said, I'm generally an inclusionist and if something is at all worth keeping I think that it should be kept, but userfication is a good alternative, especially for cases regarding notability. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Jennavecia
5a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.
A: I think that something needs to be done to improve the BLP area. There is a problem; however, I don't think that it is quite as major as some people make it out to be. There certainly do need to be higher quality requirements for and closer patrolling of BLPs, but I don't believe that the need to be as strict as some people believe. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?
1. Flagged revisions
A: I am opposed to actual flagged revisions, even for BLPs, for a number of reasons: It makes it harder for users to edit pages, a backlog would inevitably form (the German Wikipedia may be able to keep up with it, but I'm not sure if the combination between the number of articles that the English Wikipedia has and the number of active recent changes patrollers could keep up), and, having looked at the opposition in the massive flagged revisions poll, it would almost certainly drive some users away from the wiki. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
A: I fully support both of these. I feel that they contain the beneficial aspects of flagged revisions (an easier way to keep an eye on pages, without having multiple users patrol the same edit while missing others), although a backlog could form. I don't feel that patrolled revisions would really make users feel as if their edits were "limited", as would happen with flagged revisions, since it is fully passive. Flagged protection is really a separate issue... I think that it would be a good way to allow new users to constructively contribute to currently-protected pages, and even allowing established users to work with things like protected templates, when an editprotected request would be either too complicated or just not worth it. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)
A: I feel that semi-protection is a useful tool which should be implemented where necessary, but not in excess; semi-protecting all BLPs would certainly discourage some productive, new contributors from editing. Semi-flag-protection, on the other hand, could be used on a wider selection of articles. I don't think that suddenly saying "all BLPs are semi-flag-protected" would work, but it could be eased into slowly as we start to understand our ability to handle the backlog. This would be a more open way of handling BLPs than normal semi-protection, while still helping to prevent excessive vandalism to them by new and IP users. I wouldn't specifically support such a move, as it is still quite a bit more restrictive than what we have now, but I wouldn't oppose it either. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5c. For BLP AFDs, closing as "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?
A: As with question #4, this is unlikely to come up anytime soon as I plan to avoid doing much work in AFD. If I were to be closing such a nomination, I think that I would determine what to do based on the reasons given for deletion. Things such as hoaxes, a lack of references, and BLPs not adhering to a neutral point of view I'd probably delete; same with anything that looks like it could harm the individual discussed in any way. If the issue is something such as a lack of notability, I would probably err on the side of "default to keep" as long as, once again, it doesn't contain harmful material. I think that it would really just depend on the article, the reasons for deletion, and the quality of the given arguments. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from User:Geo Swan:
6. Some administrators have added themselves to the category for administrators open to feedback and review. How do you think concerns over administrators who consistently show bad judgment, or do not comply with policy should be addressed? Geo Swan (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I think that administrators who continue to show simple bad judgment or making honest mistakes should probably have another admin work with them for a few weeks to see if they can improve their judgment or learn to avoid the mistakes. If they continue to show bad judgement/continual mistakes after that, or if they knowingly go against Wikipedia policy multiple times, they should be given a warning and then, if their behavior does not stop, de-sysoped. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Wikipedians are asked to follow a consensus-based decision making model, be collegial, be civil, and engage in meaningful respectful dialogue over issues. But, as in real life, some individual, including a limited number of our current administrators, regard any questions about their statements or actions as if they were a personal attack -- no matter how civilly they are expressed. Personally I regard it as extremely important for wikipedians in general, and administrators specifically, to approach each question with an mind open to the possibility that we were mistaken, and our correspondent is correct, or is making a good point. I think it is important to acknowledge when we realize we have made a mistake, or when our correspondent has made a good point. If you were entrusted with administrator authority can the rest of us count on you to do your best to be open the remembering the possibility you might have erred? Let me state, for the record, that in our own very limited interaction you did show an instance of being open to consider the possibility of human fallibility. And, for the record, I was grateful. Geo Swan (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I think that I have shown an open mind in the past when people notify me of a problem or error that I made, and I don't plan to change that as an admin. Examples include a number of discussions on my talk page, such as this, this, this, this, and the speedy deletion of my first article, discussed here. I think that understanding others' positions is essential to making Wikipedia work, so everyone needs to kep an open mind in discussions, understanding that they could well be wrong and accepting consensus even if it isn't what they agree with. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8a You have already answered a couple of BLP related questions. What is your opinion of Wikipedia:BLP1E#Articles about people notable only for one event? I think we all recognize that protecting individuals from slander is very important, and justifies giving administrators extra authority to delete without warning. Similarly protecting the Wikipedia from being sued by those who think our articles have slandered them justifies extra authority to delete without warning. But then the BLP policy includes a section on articles on individuals notable only for "one event". I have seen overly hasty admininstrators delete articles that would have been considered perfectly acceptable prior to WP:BLP, based on interpretations that the individual was only known for "one event". This ((afd)) was closed as "no consensus". There was nothing controversial in the article. It had been extensively and repeatedly vandalized by the individual who eventually nominated it for deletion. Shortly after it was kept as "no consensus" an unrelated administrator deleted it, claiming it was a violation of BLP1E. They claimed that they had the authority to delete it as a violation of BLP1E based on some ARBCOM rulings. Those ARBCOM rulings were redacted, so us regular contributors can't fully read them, and reach our own conclusion as to what those ARBCOM rulings authorized. That second administrator claimed that, due to the authority of those redacted ARBCOM rulings his deletion could not be submitted to a regular DRV. I'll repeat, IMO, the article did not contain any slanderous material. I don't think anyone but the nominator claimed it contained slanderous material. The article was deleted solely because the second administrator regarded the individual as 1E. If you were entrusted with administrator authority would you close ((afd)) an afd as delete based on claims the individual was 1E? Geo Swan (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: This is a complicated question, and there are a number of things which would need consideration before closing such an AFD. If the AFD shows a consensus that the article should be deleted because of 1E, then it should be deleted in accordance with the consensus. If, however, the AFD was in a gray area like the one that you discussed, it would depend quite a bit on the quality of the "keep" !votes. If most of the "keep"ers are simply saying that the subject is notable without in some way further backing up the claim, it will probably be a delete. If, however, they find relevant sources and add them to the article, it would probably be closed as a keep. Regardless, I don't think that a 1E BLP article should ever be speedy deleted without consensus, as it is far outside the scope of the criteria. If the article indicated that the subject was notable at all, even for one event, speedy deletion because of notability concerns is not the proper way to resolve the situation. Consensus is needed. Does that answer your question? Without knowing the content of the ARBCOM ruling and the reason for its creation, I can't really comment on that aspect of this question. There was a lot there, so please let me know if I missed anything. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8b Would you exercise the extra authority given adminstrators in WP:BLP to delete, without warning, an article that did not slander anyone, but you thought was about an individual who was only known for "one event"? Geo Swan (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would probably leave this to other administrators. As I have said, I don't plan on doing much with deletion at this time. If I did, it would probably depend on the quality of the article, not only whether or not the person discussed was notable for only "one event". If the article is well-sourced and written from a neutral point of view, I see no reason why it should be deleted without discussion. If, however, the article has poor or no sourcing or is obviously non-neutral in perspective, deletion may be the best option. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8c I read a comment from someone who claimed that the article on Tony Blair should be deleted with any material that really merited coverage being merged into the article on George W. Bush. They asserted that Tony Blair lapsed from compliance with BLP1E -- no-one would ever have heard of him, if it weren't for his support of George Bush's war policies. This wiseguy could have cited the many articles that criticized Blair, and called him "Bush's lapdog", or "Bush's poodle". So, how would you decide an individual was only known for "one event"? Geo Swan (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: Once again, it depends on the article. I feel that anyone who has received significant news coverage should have a neutrally-worded article. If you hear about someone for a few days for something that only happened locally, that should probably be considered as "one event." Ongoing or national coverage, even on the same event or topic, should indicate that the person's article is worth keeping. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

9a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and ((underconstruction)), and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?
A: I don't think that I'd give it much extra time... a few minutes, maybe, after looking at how much time has already passed since the article creation. I feel that the ((Underconstruction)) template should be used primarily for existing articles which are undergoing an active period of expansion and change; it may make a small difference on pages which meet a speedy criteria, but probably not much. If the page was more stub-length already, even if it looked kind of like an advert, and had the template on it, I might wait a little while longer and try to fix it or talk to the creator. It doesn't take much work to recreate a page with a single X-link and a template whenever more content is going to be added, but non-admins can't typically recover their work after it was deleted to allow for improvement. (the only ways that I can think of would be to request undeletion or if they have a copy saved on their computer). –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?
A: Not really; I'd just give it a few minutes to see if anything was going to be added relatively quickly and then delete if there was no change. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?
A: Neither Editor1 nor Editor2 would be in violation of 3RR, as more than three edits are required to reach that threshold. However, in this case both editors should receive a warning or, if they have a history of edit warring and have already been warned, a block would be warranted as it is within the spirit of WP:3RR and WP:EW (probably 24 hours, but possibly longer if they've been blocked before for that same reason). Editor3's removal of content would "save" Editor2 one revert, so Editor2 would need to make an additional revert for a warning to be warranted. However, semi-protection of the page might be a good alternative if the edit warring users aren't yet autoconfirmed, to see if any discussion begins. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up Q Your approach strikes me as interestingly arithmetical. Do we block for 3RR as a sin in itself, or to prevent extended edit warring? DGG (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: To prevent extended edit warring. The main reason for having this detailed a process is that it is unfair to the edit warring editors, even if they are being disruptive, to be blocked for violating 3RR on their third (not forth) revert, since they may not have understood the policy and a warning is necessary to ensure that they do. If they've already received a warning, they don't need another one. Additionally, maybe I didn't get this point across very well in my original answer, I think that protection is strictly better than blocking if it is feasible for the situation, since that just prevents edits to that page, allowing for normal discussion to begin. Blocking, however, doesn't have this effect; if anything, it will just make some editors more frustrated with the situation, which is never a good thing. Does that answer your question? If I interpreted it wrong, please let me know. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?
A: I feel that consensus should be determined in a similar way in both types of discussions. Wikipedia is a not a vote, so saying that majority rule applies more to article writing than deletion discussions doesn't make any sense. The result of any discussion should be based not only on the number of people who vote for something (although that certainly can play a role in determining consensus), but on the quality of the arguments that they present. Whether a comment is meant to prevent an article from deletion at AFD or to remove controversial information from an article, saying something to the effect of "I like it" has much less weight than any well-reasoned and thought-out comment on the topic. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Questions from Seddon
12 Other than the usual IDONTLIKE NOSOURCES etc arguments at rfa, what would you constitute as invalid arguments?
A: Do you mean AFD? Because I don't think that people complain about sourcing issues at RFA all that much. :) If so, I feel that just !voting without saying what your reasons are is bad. I also consider !votes saying that something is "notable" or "non-notable", without the user indicating that they did some searching around to come to this conclusion, to be a less weighty argument, but still valid (this is in line with WP:BEFORE and WP:N itself). I generally agree with the various things outlined at WP:ATA. –Drilnoth (T • C) 00:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13 What simpsons charactor would you be?
A: Lisa. I feel that many of her beliefs and ideals are similar to mine. –Drilnoth (T • C) 00:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14 Did you ever vandalise wikipedia before joining as a full time editor?
A: This one's easy: No. Why harm such a valuable reference? In truth, I never made an edit before registering this account. –Drilnoth (T • C) 00:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
Comment: Thanks for the questions. I don't have the time to respond tonight, but will go over them tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • A: I believe that a block is generally a "last resort" if attempts to work with the editor and make them more constructive have failed. Blocks, either temporary or indefinite, can create their own problems if the editor is prone to frustration or believes that the block was unfair, so generally the use of a lesser measure such as page protection is better if it is possible in the situation (although this really depends on the article or articles in question). Blocks can and should also be applied to obvious non-legit sockpuppets and vandalism-only accounts. Indefinete blocks are generally used if it seems obvious that the user has no chance of becoming a better editor, but not in cases like 3RR blocks and IP blocks. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: Page protection is primarily useful in three situations: edit warring, ongoing vandalism, and high-risk pages. Page protection should be applied if there is an ongoing edit war between multiple editors (typically more than 2), when discussion doesn't seem to be helping much. A protection in this case is almost always temporary, and done to force the users to discuss the issue rather than fight over it. Ongoing vandalism from different accounts can also be a reason for protection, once again temporary, as a preventative measure to stop future vandalism. Hopefully, the page can be unprotected at a later date depending on why there was so much vandalism. High-risk pages (primarily templates and .js/.css pages) need to be indefinetely protected to ensure that they are not vandalized, which could cause massive amounts of damage. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: Speedy deletion is appropriate if the page meets one of the criteria (obvious statement, I know, but just bear with me : ), which I think fall into three main categories: Useless pages, bad pages, and technical deletions. Useless pages are things like images available on Commons (I8), empty pages (A3), and articles about certain non-notable topics (A7, A9). Bad pages are things like vandalism (G3), nonsense pages (A1), and attack pages (G10). Technical deletions are for when deletion is needed for a histmerge (G6) or when the primary author requests deletion (G7). I think that it is most important that bad pages be deleted, because some of them can cause actual problems if they exist for too long. Technical deletions and useless page deletions are about equal, and probably need some more consideration than bad pages do before deletion since they fall into a slightly more "grey area" than the first type. Regardless of what the problem is, it is good to try and fix it before deletion. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: IAR should usually be applied when there is consensus to do so. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are created by consensus, so they need a consensus to be broken, not just the opinion of one or two editors. Some policies are pretty much non-negotiable (NPOV, for example), but many warrant the occasional exception. IAR should not be used simply as a way of "getting around" a policy or guideline which the user sees as being somehow problematic. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A: Consensus is determined by the quality of arguments, not simply the number of people who agree. I think that I already gave some of my thoughts on this in my answer to question 9D, but I'll add a little bit more here. In any discussion—whether its a talk page discussion, XFD, DRV, RFA, or whatver other three-letter abbreviation you want—why a user thinks something is generally more important than just what they think. In a DRV where two people give strong arguments about why the deletion should be overturned and five people agree with the deletion with little or no explanation (IDONTLIKEIT), I think that the deletion should be overturned (and possibly brought to an XFD for further discussion). However, this isn't always the case... if twenty contributors (no sock puppets!) wanted to keep the page deleted with little or no explanation, it should probably stay deleted. The number of !votes can matter, but just not as much as the quality of arguments. I don't really feel that consensus should be determined differently in different discussions, except for things like large polls on important topics and RFA/RFB (all of which should need more consensus than more isolated discussions); it's primarily what the consensus means that differs (if it's close in an AFD, the article is generally kept. If it's close in a DRV, the article generally stays deleted). –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: First I'd look at the situation for a number of things. First, have I been involved much in the article? If so, asking another admin is probably the best course of action, although I feel that applying page protection can be valid even if you are involved as long as you don't show favoritism when doing so. Second, have there been any users besides JohnDoe and JaneRow involved in the edit warring? Third, is JohnQ involved in the dispute, and therefore have a possibly biased view of the situation and "who's right". Forth, how long has the edit war been going on, and have there been 3RR violations? Finally, do any of the involved editors have past histories of edit warring? The exact course of action which should be taken depends on the results of all of these questions, and can range from meditation or protection to warnings or temporary blocks. There's really a lot of variables in this situation, so I can't really say what steps I would take because its different for each edit war. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
  • A: Primarily, because I feel that I can help Wikipedia more with the extra tools. There are times when it seems kind of... well... pointless to do things because you can't actually finish them (moving images to the Commons is a great example; sometimes I wonder why I should work on it if there's just a growing backlog for admins to deal with in order to complete the process). There are other times when administrator attention needs to be taken quickly, and just adding a CSD tag or reporting it to WP:RPP could take too long depending on what kinds of backlogs there are. Various backlogs in places like WP:SFD and WP:PUF are also getting a bit too large, and more admins are needed to help deal with them. Finally, it is difficult to help improve protected templates and user scripts because making the request and having an admin get to it seems kind of pointless, especially if its just a minor edit (for example, when I had to request that a citation tag be fixed on British Isles), and making editprotected requests about "abandoned" user scripts is usually bad because if an error is introduced then you need to make another one or three requests in order to fix it, during which time the script could be causing problems. Adminship will allow me to help out more in all of these areas. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 17:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will not be sending out thankspam after this RFA regardless of its outcome, so I would like to thank everyone who votes for or against me now. Thank you for your support and/or constructive criticism. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  1. Not enough administrators currently.--Pattont/c 13:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been discussion about this support on AN, and someone alleged that I supported without even looking investigating the candidate. I am supporting because his contributions show no sign that he will misuse the tools, and because of his absolutly brilliant answer to question three. I just didn't feel like saying that earlier on.--Pattont/c 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not enough administrators currently. Sense of humor fail. I have no reason to not trust him.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, guys. If we don't want DougsTech to template-oppose, perhaps we shouldn't encourage him? –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come on, have a sense of humor. I'm only joking.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is important to the applicant, and to the project. Please let us see your humour elsewhere only. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, as co-nom, natch. :) BOZ (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support Wizardman 13:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support sensible - I think Drilnoth has amassed enough experience points to level up Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MMORPG? :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support The user looks trustworthy to me. hmwithτ 14:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Quite honestly, I thought he already was an administrator. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 14:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:38, April 6, 2009 (UTC)
  9. Why not? Hiding T 14:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Support. Some CSD mistakes ([1][2][3][4][5]) but I think this candidate is mature enough to learn from them should they decide to venture into that area. The other contributions look fine enough to assume that they will. Regards SoWhy 15:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I don't plan at this time to actually speedy delete articles both because of those mistakes and because I don't want to do anything controversial like that. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I don't have no reason not to, but I have a question. I personally have no issue in doing it, but should two people with RFA's open being co-noming each other?? Anyway, support.America69 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh... well, it just kind of happened that we were both nominated at the same time and we both believe the other would make a good admin so... yah. It's also just kind of funny. :) (besides, to my knowledge a co-nom really doesn't mean much except that it shows a greater vouch for support than a standard vote, but it isn't counted differently at the end). –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya, thats fine. It just caught me as funny =). America69 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated Drilnoth first ("First Nom!") and didn't know anyone would co-nom him. In fact, I've never interacted with Boz. Both of them secondarily-nominated each other, after someone else had nommed each of them (but not Om nom nommed them), so it's just a coincidence of timing. – Quadell (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sshhh... it's a secret conspiracy. ;) Well, just a happy coincidence - I'm sure Hiding and Quadell were not discussing in secret about nominating the two of us. :) Hiding first approached me a few weeks ago, and while I was pondering accepting, I thought to myself how Drilnoth would make an excellent admin and started thinking of reasons why. When I saw that he was nominated on the same day as me, and that he had wanted to co-nom me, I figured I'd return the favor with his permission. :) BOZ (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. Disclaimer: I granted Drilnoth rollback a few days ago. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Good answers to questions, no problems —LetsdrinkTea 16:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has been nominated by a nice Wikipedian, makes reasonable arguments in AfDs, understands WP:BEFORE, and is a Good Article contributor. Two good candidates in a row!  :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Seems to be a good candidate with a head full of clue. FlyingToaster 17:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support solid editor, would make a wonderful admin. Ikip (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support For reasons similar to BOZ. I'm cheating here, because I know the both of them from the same places...but since they both nominated each other (!) at the same time, I feel justified in doing so. I feel that Drinloth is a capable mediator, is willing to learn from mistakes, and will use the tools appropriately. Just as w/ BOZ, I'm certain that editors can put aside their content disputes with this editor and support him on his merits. That would be the right thing to do. Protonk (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I like the answers above and can definitely approve someone who wishes to both stay away from controversy (less drama) and yet willing to handle the more mundane admin tasks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Per above. -download | sign! 18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Calm, reasonable , fair-minded editor, receptive to new information and willing to learn. All my interactions with him have been pleasant and constructive. Communicates clearly and not overly wordy. I have no fears that he will abuse. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Level-headed, proactive in engaging those he disagrees with, increasingly talented at dispute resolution and buidling consensus. I was very critical of his earlier treatment of Gavin Collins, but he's grown considerably as an editor since then. Can be trusted not to abuse the tools, which is really all RfA is about once you lose the lame purity tests. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Has the right attitude: constructive and cooperative. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. No problems I can see. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Level-headed, calm editor. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. For his great work on the 2009 Spring GAN backlog elimination drive, I see Drilnoth as a hardworking and trustworthy candidate. — Σxplicit 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Per Patton.--Giants27 T/C 21:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No reasons not to. - Fastily (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support — Jake Wartenberg 22:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Someone you can normally communicate with, even after I reverted most of one of his edits. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  31. Support this excellent contributor.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Seems to be trustworthy. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Yep LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 review! 01:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support- Sure, why not? I noticed Drilnoth because he sometimes wanders by some of the numerous notability-related discussions. Although Drilnoth is on the other side of that dispute from me, I've been impressed with his ability to keep a level head and see things from the other side's point of view. That's a virtue that's not so common in those discussions, and makes me very confident that he'll be a competent and responsible admin. Reyk YO! 01:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Drilnoth already does tons for the wiki, and with the tools they can do even more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Support - Drilnoth has proven to me to be a excellent wikipeidian and editor. He has acted fair and always has worked to make sure there is consensus. He his bent over backwards to help others including those with opposing points of view. Web Warlock (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support work in the D&D arena is superb. Outstanding editor, fair.Hobit (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per positive past interactions and collaborations. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support WikiProject Vital Articles. Nuff said. Steven Walling (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - Excellent candidate, all-around. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I've seen him around a fair bit, works for me. MBisanz talk 07:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Trust him with the tools Power.corrupts (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support following our work together on WP:WPCHECK. 09:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC) -- User:Docu
  44. Support. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Seems to have the right idea, does good work here. Good luck! GlassCobra 16:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Looks great.--Res2216firestar 17:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support This individual seems civil and reasonable. Good luck. Geo Swan (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Seen him around and seems a hardworking and reasonable minded editor. No tension. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Yes, certainly. Seems balanced and sane (as sane as any of us). --GedUK  07:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - looks fine to me. Euryalus (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - Candidate has a decent grasp of the BLP problem and is willing to take steps in the direction of improvement. لennavecia 14:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - meets my standards at User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards; no good reason to oppose. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Good answers to the questions, should do well with the tools. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Has already shown responsibility and yada yada in my interactions with him in the past. (I was about to say "responsibility and leadership skills," but that sounds like a cover letter for class president.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it does. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support for defined reasons. --candle•wicke 14:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Looks good. RayTalk 20:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Have always seen fine work. Hekerui (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Drilnoth, you appear to be a reasonable, experienced, and trustworthy editor. Rosiestep (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support good answers to questions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support--Caspian blue 02:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support An OK from me; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 10:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support – excellent user, will do just fine. TheAE talk/sign 17:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Lean Support - Your justifications for being an admin and your experience is light, but some of your responses (especially in regards to block) are great. Now, will you be staying true to them? I hope. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support: firstly, because I think his answers to questions show a great deal of common sense; secondly, because his contributions to writing articles and his work with Vital Articles is commendable, and, perhaps more importantly, a good indicator of integrity; and thirdly, because my own interactions with Drilnoth lead me to believe that he is both helpful (kindly giving me some pointers on how to improve articles when I was still new and inexperienced) and open to suggestions (the first to sign up for what was then very much a beta WP:ANN signup scheme). So yes, I'm a very much a supporter. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support A lot of strong candidates on the page at the moment, but you may be the best. Pleasant, helpful, knowledgable, excellent candidate. Dean B (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - per the discussion under neutral, below. - jc37 21:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - Absolutely. AdjustShift (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Support Great user. I have worked with him on several occasions, most notably when he helped me redesign the WP:Norse assessment template. One thing I would like to see is perfect edit summary usage, but 99% for major edits is fine for me. He's human, after all, so I can certainly overlook a few mistakes. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support, but I don't recall ever helping you with a banner redesign... are you sure that it was me? Anyway, I virtually always leave an edit summary now (unless I hit the wrong button); most of the changes without summaries are from when I was still newer and didn't fully understand their importance. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Per the many positive comments and neutral discussion. -- Banjeboi 02:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Clearly the 'crats are taunting me with that "Promote Drilnoth" link. :) For me this is one of those "Wait, they's not an admin yet?" nominations. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 07:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support on balance, reasonably ready for the job. We may have too many admins, but not enough acticve ones. I think he'll be active. DGG (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support, per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, and great contributions to the project in varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support: Good answers to the questions; clearly dedicated, thoughtful, and intelligent. I like knowing that he's going to head to neglected backlogs instead of dramamongering elsewhere, :-) Maedin\talk 09:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Seems mop-worthy to me from our limited encounters and the answers to questions Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Good track and user Rollback well.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Keep up the good work! :) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 02:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Late vote, when seems clearly headed to be acceptance as adminstrator. I don't vote in RfAs often. Drilnoth was responsive, reasonable in response to a problem i posed about some recent AWB edits by him/her, which I pointed out could cause problems in large list-articles. Given relatively short experience in wikipedia, please don't be overconfident in any judgmental type actions at AfD or elsewhere (no evidence you would, but please be careful). Glad to have you on board with your technical skills. doncram (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support as nom. Do I get the last support? – Quadell (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe; there's only twenty minutes left. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - nope, at least one more squeaking in under the wire. I see level-headed answers and the right approach to adminship.  Frank  |  talk  12:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These votes should seriously be discounted by the closing 'crat. TheAE talk/sign 17:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry about it; it probably won't matter anyway. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know, but it's the principle of the thing. :) TheAE talk/sign 18:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't know why people get so worked up over his !votes. He has a right to vote like everyone else, his !vote obviously is not going to make or break this RFA(or any other). He does always vote the same, and I am sure the bureaucrats are aware of this, and won't be swayed by his vote.WackoJackO 19:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked him, in a perfectly friendly fashion and away from WP:RfA, to elaborate on his view as to how many admins are appropriate. He has chosen not to answer. Let us now ignore this templated oppose in future AND NOT RESPOND TO IT! --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What Anthony said. –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What User:American Eagle said. Any votes saying "Too many administrators currently" should be removed! Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 02:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - I know that the editor has said he won't be involved with AfD, but I'm uncomfortable that someone with this attitude towards inclusionism should have anything to do with the buttons, to be honest. Sorry. Black Kite 11:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder whether Drilnoth's own attitudes have changed in the last six months. It's certainly possible. Drilnoth? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you that I don't feel that way anymore. I certainly am still on the inclusionist side of things, but not like that... honestly, I think that that was the only time that I really went crazy about it. I was still a pretty new editor then (just a few weeks), and didn't fully understand why those policies and guidelines are the way that the are (in truth, if you can see my deleted contributions I've requested speedy's on a number of articles under A7: non-notability). I am still generally opposed to using PLOT as a reason for deletion... WP:PNJCS and all; if an article consists entirely of plot, then it should be cleaned up with real world information if possible before deletion is considered. Also, even if there is some time during my adminship that my views on something are against consensus (not that I can foresee any such instances right now), I plan to do everything possible to put aside my own personal feelings on the topic and follow what consensus dictates. Naturally this is almost impossible, but one can try. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; I'll assume good faith and strike my oppose. Black Kite 15:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for reconsidering. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose. I admit Drilnoth seems like a very reasonable person and his answers to the questions make a lot of sense. However all of his content edits that I've found in his contribs have been minor tweaks, mainly using an impressive arsenal of tools. An admin is eventually going to get involved in controversial activities like AfD, dispute resolution & blocking. These generally arise in connection with content creation (new or significantly changed main text or images), and Drilnoth seems to have done very little of that, and therefore does not have much experience of the potential battlegrounds. --Philcha (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been using a lot of tools to do minor edits recently, but my earlier history contains a lot more content-building type edits; I think that I'll probably go back and forth between the minor stuff and the content stuff. For example this shows 250 article edits from December, most of which are from work on increasing article quality. It's primarily just been two or three weeks that I've been using the number of tools that I have. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the Gavin.collins dispute got into a lot of dispute resolution stuff related to articles, as well as involvement in a number of AFDs. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral - I think I would like to ask the candidate to expand/clarify their answers. 15a shows an inexperience with blocking (which is ok, as most new admins (including myself at the time) typically have similar inexperience). 15b needs clarification/expansion, and except for the last sentence, 15d is simply incorrect. A few other answers (not just to my questions) leave me with a couple concerns. but I'm hoping that further expansion/clarification of at least these will help clear them up. - jc37 14:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't have much experience with blocking policy, and especially since I don't plan to do much in that area I haven't taken the time to study the policy... if I ever think about getting involved in blocking, I'll certainly do some more research first. What sorts of clarification would you like about protection? I'll happily expand my response if I know what needs to be clarified. As for 15D, how is it incorrect? When I said "consensus", I meant that there should be a reason to ignore the rules in the situation, with no significant reason as to why they shouldn't be. If one person decides on something which they think will help Wikipedia and does it under IAR, if there is no opposition, then it is a good instance to ignore the rules. And, now that I think about it further, NPOV might be the only policy which I would be hesitant to ever let be "ignored"; Wikipedia's articles should never be weighted towards one view or another. WP:V and WP:RS need, by their very nature, to be ignored at times, enough so that they even discuss reasons when this should be. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Protection - How you worded it could be interpreted more than one way. And it's 50/50 whether your view (as written) follows the policy or violates it. So I'm hoping that expanding your comments would help.
Consensus - similar to protection, above, though more like 70/30 in favour.
IAR - I just finished an answer concerning this at another RfA, so I'll just copy/paste:
"The whole idea is that we often have to deal with situations on a case-by-case basis. And often some aspect of the "rules" doesn't well apply to the given situation at hand. That would be a moment to consider IAR."
Consensus has little to do with IAR, though I suppose that it is possible to form a consensus to IAR. And yes, there should be a good, explainable reason when citing IAR for a particular action. - jc37 16:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Protection – I fully understand the protection policy, but it can sometimes be hard to explain one's views on something when given such an open ended question. I think that the current policy is comprehensive and should be followed; when you ask "Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for a page to be protected", it's kind of hard to know how to respond. Should I be listing instances where I think that protection is appropriate? My views on page protection as a whole? I just tried to summarize my interpretation of the policy; I certainly don't intend to violate it and I feel that everything in it makes perfect sense.
Consensus – Was there something that doesn't agree with the policy in my explanation? I've been in a number of situations that involve consensus (haven't we all?), and I believed that I had a pretty good grasp of the policy. What part of my explanation seems that it could contradict the policy? If there is anything, I'll happily explain my views on it further; I just don't know what more there really is to say about it here that I haven't already.
IAR – what I meant in my response above is that if there is some real reason not to ignore the rules in a situation, the rules should usually be followed. Using the BRD cycle should determine this partial-consensus most of the time: If Editor1 make an edit against established policy and Editor2 reverts it citing a policy or guideline, then it can be discussed on the talk page and, eventually, it will be determined that either the rules should be ignored, or they should be followed. If neither side of the discussion can come to a conclusion, asking for a 3O, starting an article RFC, or posting at a relevant noticeboard should help to determine whether the rule should be followed or not. Someone can't just cite "IAR" as a reason for the edit without further explanation; there needs to be an additional reason, and then if someone disputes it it should be discussed. If nobody disputes the change, then further consensus isn't needed beyond the one editor thinking "It should be done this way, even thought it's against [policy]".
Does that clarify my positions? I'm sorry if I'm being at all unclear here. –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example: "...and done to force the users to..." - While this may indeed be the result, this shouldn't be the intention. What should the intention(s) be?
And as for IAR, I think most would agree that one of the most common concerns is how it's applied in relation to speedily deleting something. Not so much discussions on talk pages. (Though it's applicability to WP:SNOW and as you note: WP:BOLD, are as well.)
As for consensus, while you appear to mostly grasp the weighing arguments issue (something that I wish everyone understood), vote counting simply isn't appropriate in any example, except when we're determining when to give greater responsibility to an editor. (In those cases, it's usually some sort of cross between voting and consensus - RfA being an example of that.)
And as for consensus at the different locations, though similar, each have their own distinct differentiations. DRV, for example, is a forum of cloture, and mostly concerns the previous closure, not the previous discussion, so closes there can be quite different than XfD. - jc37 18:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; thanks for the clarifications. I feel that the intention of and primary reason for page protection is to stop edit warring/vandalism/whatever other problem. In the case of edit warring, it also means that editors then need to try and find a way to resolve the dispute without fighting over it. Protection should never be used for the sole purpose of creating discussion; rather, creating discussion is often a sideffect of protection which is important to helping solve whatever started the dispute in the first place.
Speedy deletion with relation to IAR is dangerous grounds... my personal opinion is that if something can't be deleted under one of the CSD criteria, it should be prodded or AFD'd instead. New criteria can be proposed if a problem is recurring, but generally if an article needs to be deleted but doesn't meet one of the criteria, more than one or two sets of eyes are needed to really determine the result. There might be a handful of rare exceptions, but I can't think of any offhand. IAR with respect to things like SNOW and BOLD is more easy to deal with, but once you're treading into the deletion area I feel that policy should usually (but certainly not always) be followed because it is much more difficult to discuss an out-of-process deletion than it is with other disputes... DRV can get kind of complicated from what I've seen, especially if normal editors can't see what was deleted.
Consensus: I now see your point about the different locations having different processes. I'm not really familiar with things like DRV (I've never been involved in one, nor do I tend to comment on or close any in the forseeable future), so was unaware that its process was different. I think that I'm pretty familiar with consensus in regards to talk page discussion and XFD, as I've had a fair bit of experience with both of them (not much in actual AFD, but just various XFDs in general). I also feel that weight of arguments should almost always apply much more than number of arguments. However, in the (to my knowledge) never-before-happened-and-unlikely-to-ever-happen case of 2 well-reasoned delete !votes and 20 keep votes (not the lack of "!") all coming from established users in a single XFD, it would probably be no consensus territory... not an actual "keep", but there certainly wouldn't be a real "consensus" for deletion. If it was 10 keep votes, then I may ere on the side of delete, and I certainly would if it was less that 7 or so. I don't plan on becoming involved in that kind of an XFD any time soon (I mainly plan to focus on things like less-controversial things at FFD, PUF, CFD, and TFD), because I really fall into the "inclusionist" range and if there's a controversial deletion discussion I don't want to have my opinion causing any trouble when closing it (I feel that I'll be able to close less-controversial things like those mentioned above pretty easily, because they aren't articles). It really just depends on the situation, who is saying what, and the reasons given. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice responses. And definitely beyond just parroting the text. I think I'm fairly comfortable with most of the above (except the vote counting - though I think I understand what you're trying to say there...), and I think you understood what I was trying to discern.
And you may find that no XfD page is "less controversial" than another. It merely depends on the discussion, and the interest of those commenting : )
Anyway, based upon the clarification above, I'm switching to "support". Thanks for taking the time to comment (especially since with how the "numbers" look now, you probably didn't have to : )
And as an aside, if you ever need help, aid or guidance, Hiding is an excellent choice. (As he shows very well below, by simultaneously calling me out on the carpet to make sure my ducks are in a row, and at the same time re-affirming that which you did say : )
Hope you're having a good day : ) - jc37 20:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to read my responses; my apologies if my original answers hadn't been clear. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in, but I want to defend Drilnoth's reading of page protection policy by quoting the actual policy: "temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page". It does exactly what it says on the tin. And personally I think your answer to 15d was fair enough. You can't get away with ignoring a rule if the community consensus is against the ignoring of that rule. IAR does depend on consensus. Hiding T 15:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between cause and effect. (As I noted in my follow-up clarification.) Just because something "can" have an effect, doesn't mean that that is always the desired intention. (That and, if we really want to get off on a tangent we could diverge into a discussion about how policy text on a policy page is only intended to represent the common practice, and should not be considered prescriptive or necessarily denotative (among other things).)
So anyway, just as I noted above, while one "can" be the mode through which IAR is achieved, or while the other "can" be the effect, there's a question of the "effect" the candidate intends to achieve, "why" they have that intention, and "how" the candidate intends to achieve it. And a candidate's intentions, and how such might be reflective of the intentions of the community, is, I would think, something worth knowing when attempting to discern whether to entrust them with extra tools/responsibilities.
While the tools themselves may be "neutral", and therefore "no big deal", how they may be used can indeed be a bit of a deal, and has the potential for great disruption (as we've seen in the past), else we wouldn't have things like RfA. (Noting of course, that User:Jimbo Wales has repeatedly said he might sysop several individuals at his discretion, due to his own perspectives on adminship...)
Anyway, theoretics aside, let me get back to responding to the candidate's answers, since this is their nomination : ) - jc37 20:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category