Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/DrKiernan

Voluntary nature of RfC/U
The desired outcome is probably not going to work: "That DrKiernan's regradings be classed as disruptive editing, and hence reversed pending examination of the articles and any valid complaints by the WikiProjects who gave the grades in the first place."

RfC/U work is part of consensus-driven dispute resolution. It is not ArbComm; 'the community' is not imposing any sanctions here. If DrKiernan doesn't agree to any given outcome, then the RfC/U cannot impose it. More specifically, the RfC/U process is not able to authorize edit wars to remove his changes, even if all involved parties agreed to it.

You can ask DrKiernan stop assessment work (and presumably do something more important, which is just about anything). Alternatively, individual WikiProjects may demand (and expect admins in their project to enforce their demand) that DrKiernan not reassess articles with respect to their own project.

I think the filers of this need to re-read the instructions, and reformulate a desired outcome that addresses their concerns and that could be implemented solely through the actions of the involved parties. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My desired outcome is that DrKiernan be more willing to engage in reaching a consensus. Hiding T 16:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing, you claim that I did not investigate each project's criteria for lists carefully. I think this diff:  (which Physchim62 provides at Nos. 104 and 105 of his list [it is duplicated]), shows that such a claim is not true. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet you switched it to list class when you knew they didn't use the list rating... Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Spongebob Squarepants doesn't recognise list-class, so the article remains A-class. Nickelodeon does recognise list-class, so the rating changes from A-class to List-class for that project only. DrKiernan (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And I looked at about dozen assessments you made, and in that short list, I quickly found three clear anti-guideline changes. At the risk of being excessively blunt:  your argument here is apparently that you are incompetent (unable to understand and correctly apply the project's guidelines) instead of lazy (didn't bother to read them in the first place).  I'm willing to accept that as an explanation for these errors, but I really don't think that excuses the conduct.  You made mistakes; you should avoid making the same mistakes in the future.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm content that with DrKiernan's response, the matter is resolved. He's indicated a reasonable future course of action, we're here to make things smoother in the future.  I've endorsed his proposed resolution.  Let's finish this and get on with building an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also satisfied with the response provided. The proposed resolution is mostly satisfactory, however I'd suggest that in addition to clarifying that assessments should not be marked as minor changes, the assessment change should be indicated in the edit summary. If this is added to the proposed resolution, then I will endorse. cmadler (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to support a supposed "resolution" which is a de facto ArbCom-style editing constraint on DrKiernan. RFC is not the place for that and, as the disruptive editing seems circumscribed to the area of article assessment, I hardly think it would be appropriate to waste ArbCom's time on the matter. I trust that DrKiernan will recognise that his edits were, at the very least, grossly inappropriate in the circumstances, and will refreain from such behaviour in the future. The point of the RFC was to try and gain outside views on the "inappropriateness" of DrKiernan's edits, and that seems to be occuring (although any further comments are more than welcome). Physchim62 (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the proposed resolution is specifically targeted at DrKiernan... his edits may have brought it about, but I think that a "changing an assessment isn't minor" type of thing in a guideline would be a good idea for everyone to follow. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone except DrKiernan has ever suggested that a reclassification at the higher levels is a minor edit. Should the good doctor continue to think that, just because you change a single letter, the edit is minor, then he or she should consider the case of our article on the Irish punt. I can only think of two reasons why so many edits were classed as minor:
 * DrKiernan forgot to change the settings on AWB or whatever other script was being used to reassess the articles;
 * DrKiernan did it deliberately, so that the edits would show up on fewer watchlists.
 * Physchim62 (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Any thought about delisting an A Class article without giving the oportunity to their respective project to redeem/salvage them ? --KrebMarkt 14:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously ridiculous but, had DrKiernan done what were necessary, he or she couldn't have downgraded so many articles in such a short space of time and with so little oversight. It is notable that:
 * DrKiernan concentrated on A-class articles, not on articles listed at Featured articles/Cleanup listing which would have required a featured article review (and hence an opprotunity for improval) to delist them. This despite the fact that many articles on that list have identical problems to those that led DrKiernan to downgrade from A-class. Is this an admission that A-class is of higher quality than FA?
 * There are 631 entries on Featured articles/Cleanup listing, although many articles are listed in several sections. Had DrKiernan applied the same approach, listing all of these articles for WP:FAR, the system would have collapsed!
 * Physchim62 (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to DrKiernan. People are more convinced that for Class A unilateral reassessments by a single editor are unacceptable --KrebMarkt 18:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can argue that unilateral "promotions" are acceptable but unilateral reversions of such "promotions" are not. Ratings should follow consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone who promoted 267 articles in less than a month, without discussion and marking the edits as minor, and who then tried to use the number of A-class articles to show how wonderful A-class was… such an editor would also be pulled up for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, just as you have been. Physchim62 (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely sensing some personal animus from you towards the good doctor, Physchim62. Do you think you can put that aside so we can move ahead and resolve this matter?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless the feud between those two, there is objectively a conscensus to not let the re-assessment of A Class to a lone editor. --KrebMarkt 10:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hardly consider it to be a personal feud! It is a disagreement concerning an isolated incident in DrKiernan's many years of constructive contribution to Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that I have to close my eyes and pretend that DrKiernan's edits were acceptible, nor his or her responses either for that matter. I could simply have unilaterally reverted all 267 edits: instead I brought it to an appropriate Community forum to gain comments from other other editors. I am the one trying to reach consensus on this issue, not the good doctor. Physchim62 (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No sarcasm in my previous post. I know that the doctor taunted you. You took his/her bait but the catch is too big for him/her. Any further DrKiernan's argument in A Class debate will be traded carefully. --KrebMarkt 12:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a small note on the changing class as a minor edit. As I understand it, we label edits as minor so as not to bother other editors with the details of typos etc. The only reason to label a class change as minor is so that other editors watching the page cannot see that this change has been made. I for one would be interested in any class changes on any page I am watching as this is an important marker in the progression of an article. I can't believe there are many other editors that really don't want to know this, whether it be from start to C or whatever. However, DrK crossed more than just this line by also labelling the minor edit as 'add Occitan link' making the edit appear to be the addition of the fact that the article was featured in the Occitan language edition of wikipedia whilst also changing the class A to B. This is a pure attempt at stealth, trying to remain as unnoticed as possible. Polargeo (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)