Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/David Kernow

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

David Kernow[edit]

Final Ended Wed, 13 Sep 2006 04:17:01 (UTC) (42/0/1)

David Kernow (talk · contribs) – My first contact with David Kernow occurred during discussions regarding the standardization of articles about country subdivisions. I quickly found him an exceptionally helpful and corteous editor, who always pays meticulous attention to others' input, and who always replies with constructive ideas and sound arguments. David is an outstanding contributor to Wikipedia, having provided more than 15000 edits since September 2005. Some of his current work can be witnessed here. I believe that adminship would not only provide him with greater autonomy, as would also represent a deserved recognition for his tireless dedication to Wikipedia. Húsönd 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
After such generous testimony, I am glad to accept – thank you, Húsönd!  David 03:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate may make an optional statement here:

I'd like to acknowledge KI, who created the original RfA back in April and Anonymous editor for his support (see #Interested). I let the previous RfA drift onto the shelf as I felt unsure (1) how far adminship might cut into time spent on the encyclopedia itself; and (2) whether I might become "over-addicted" to Wikipedia; but, as Húsönd reminded me in the run-up to this RfA, "you can always request de-adminship". Naturally, I hope that if I am made an admin, this won't prove necessary.
Addendum: I'd also like to acknowledge Ya ya ya ya ya ya for his/her recent encouragement, which I meant but forgot to include in my haste to complete Húsönd's RfA prepared before time passed by. Please accept my apologies, Ya ya ya ya ya ya!

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: In order of likely occurrence, closing and acting on Categories for discussion; making admin-required Requested moves; Speedy deletions. Those, at least, are my anticipations...
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Most recently, the bold entries on the To do list linked by Húsönd above. More generally, material in the encyclopedia whose older versions are archived here.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I'm happy to report that since the isolated incident mentioned at this point in the previous RfA draft – which was more a matter of unfortunate timing than conflict – I don't recall any subsequent conflicts or stress. When they occur, I guess my approach is to step back for a moment, try to understand how/why there is conflict or stress, try to empathize and, if needs be, invite other folk (informally) to contribute. I hope I shall not feel the need to use any of the more formal mechanisms for dealing with conflicts, but am reassured that they exist.

Questions from JoshuaZ. As always all additional questions are completely optional.

1 Could you expand on your response to question 2 above?
As regards identifying specific articles in the main area of the encyclopedia that are linked from /Archive, I think I'm pretty happy with them all – not, in case this is not clear, that I think any of them are "finished" or "mine". On another tack, the "List of X countries" articles may be relatively simple, but I guess I was a little surprised to find them missing, so am more glad rather than pleased or proud to've initiated them. Although /Contemporary national administrative divisions by country and /List of terms for contemporary national administrative divisions are still (just) in userspace (i.e. they're due to be moved into the encyclopedia very soon), these are articles with which I'm pleased as I hope they may be used as reference points. They also are not "finished". (I'm also pleased as constructing them has led to my meeting more friendly and helpful folk online, not only here at Wikipedia.)
I realise I didn't mention /No longer on watchlist in my original response, a page of links to articles which (with a few exceptions, mostly those in italics) I haven't originated but to which I have made more than one or two passing edits. Of those, I recall spending a fair amount of time on Marilyn Monroe, Wernher von Braun and – the very first article, I think, that I spent some time on – Chris Amon. I hope the maps sourced for the articles listed in the #Canadian Arctic section and the photographs for those in #Megalithic have made a positive difference.
I hope all this addresses what you have in mind!
2 I noticed that among other templates (such as the extremely useful {{smaller}} template) you also made the templates {{DPN}} and {{RPN}}. How would you respond to concerns that these templates indicate a bad attitude towards deletion and related discussions?
I use these templates in the context of WP:CfD. In the first instance, I'd try to make sure I hadn't misunderstood why they might appear so; then, if the subtext were the question "So why doesn't he use a "keep", "merge" template etc...?", perhaps it's because my keep/merge/etc responses tend not to reference the original nomination as regularly. Additionally/alternatively, I could suggest a review of my contributions to CfD debates to see whether they upheld such an interpretation. I suspect the majority of categories nominated there are categories that most folk – not just I – would rename or delete. (I'll happily create "keep" and "merge" templates along the same lines if you and/or anyone else feels there is an imbalance to be addressed.)
3 Given how long you have been here and how prolific a user you have been, why have you not asked for adminship much earlier?
Because, I suppose, not being an admin hasn't prevented my happily contributing to the encyclopedia. I recognise, however, that another way to contribute is to have the means to (for example) close and action debates, move pages and act as a pointer for the less initiated. The apparently increasing frequency with which backlogs arise, for instance, suggests this kind of contribution would be welcome.
4 How would you respond to users who are concerned that if they pile on support for you you will likely get well into the WP:100 and likely push down their "ranking" in the admin set, especially if that user happens to be ranked 12 there now?
I think I'd ask them to support me for the sake of the encyclopedia, not WP:100. Does this list have significance beyond indicating people/actions that were well-endorsed...?
Comments
Support
  1. Strong Support as nominator. --Húsönd 04:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I have come across David a few times and found him to be very civil and helpful. I would be glad to support. GeorgeMoney (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support - weak answers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak support Although his answers are quite weak, his contributions on Wikipedia must be commended. Also, unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I too have come across David a few times, mostly at Category discussions, and have found him civil and productive. I also note that he has moved over 500 pages, though quite what that implies I'm not sure! (A brief glance at the moves suggests most are OK.) His editing spread across the namespaces is good, though not much in the Image namespace. Would the candidate be confident enough to be involved in Image issues? Carcharoth 10:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe so, as I have been involved with image issues (mostly maps) at the Commons. As ever, though, if I feel unsure about anything, I try to seek assistance or say so (and look to try to undo any mistakes I make!). Thanks for your support, David 14:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support, answers to questions are rather weak, but looks good. --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For those folk who'd prefer "stronger" responses, I'm happy to address any concerns you might have. In the meantime, thanks for your support!  David 14:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support. David is a joy to work with, and his level of responsibility and meticulousness towards everything he does in Wikipedia is commendable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support I offered to nominate him.... :( Ya ya ya ya ya ya 12:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I see none of the normal red flags and a lot of positives. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support, don't need amazing answers when it's this obvious he'll be a great admin. --Rory096 17:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I've always found David to be a knowledgeable editor when I've encountered him at CFD or on my talk page. I see no reason to believe he'll do a less than admirable job as an admin. Syrthiss 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support A great editor who does good work. Will use the admin tools responsibly.--§hanel 18:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Support An experienced editor and trustworthy editor, but I would also prefer better answers to the questions.-- danntm T C 19:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per above. Michael 19:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support -- takes pride in work as well as having a clean upload log, and a large move log that would be easier with admin tools --T-rex 19:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. - Mailer Diablo 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weakish Support. The answers are brief but, in my opinion, adequate and - most importantly - honest. According to the candidate's edit resumé, he's never participated in a discussion on an AN/x and has only warned users about 200 times. I will hope, therefore, that he does not use his admin powers to combat anything but the most blatant of vandalism. While he's trustworthy, it doesn't seem that he has a lot of experience in the vandalism arena. He's participated in lots and lots of XfDs, which makes me confident in his knowledge of the deletion policy. Overall, David seems to be a great user and, in my opinion, very trustworthy. Srose (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm pleased to report that my experience of vandalism has been very slight indeed – which, to me, says all systems are working well and folk are to be commended!  So, yes again, at present I don't anticipate dealing with anything but the most blatant/straightforward vandalism. If, however, this semblance of control is barely being maintained, I'll happily consider what I might (learn to) do to assist further. Yours, David 05:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Merovingian - Talk 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per Srose _Doctor Bruno__Talk_/E Mail 02:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Conscious 10:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support With slight reservations. Needs to tell when a question is meant as a joke(that is, my question 4). Other than that a very good candidate. JoshuaZ 12:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. the wub "?!" 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Kbdank71 18:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, despite failing JoshuaZ's sense-of-humour question #4 by answering seriously. Themindset 19:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I think his answers are very much to the point. ~ trialsanderrors 20:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Good, detailed responses expanded response to optional questions. 2500 user space edits??? How...? --Nishkid64 20:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I really liked his answer to JoshuaZ's optional third question and he's obviously shown quite a dedication to helping make Wikipedia a better place (most of his contribs are rather unheralded activities, which shows that he derives happiness from simply helping out any way he can, which is quite a character trait). To help shine some light on the query directly above, David seems to be involved in a massive project here: User:David Kernow/Contemporary national administrative divisions by country. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Just the fact that the guy has 15,000+ edits merits support. - Mike 23:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Cautious support. Well, I felt able to say hello ;) --Ghirla -трёп- 07:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support  :) Dlohcierekim 18:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per all above. Excellent user, valuable contributions, no issues. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Zaxem 02:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support -- have seen this user about and witnessed only good things. - Longhair 04:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - serious editor, no chance of abuse, can only be constructive having him as an admin. Rockpocket 07:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support have come across a few times. Great editor. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 13:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support (I started writing a small book about all the positives - and zero negatives - about my observations of him on CfD, but I think the fact that I "could" write such a lengthy treatise is enough : ) - jc37 19:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Short version:Open-minded, and willing to discuss, and look at something from more than one point of view. I think the same reasons go for why I think he's easily trustworthy of the mop. - jc37 19:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Trustable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per nom. Good contributor Anger22 19:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, though I share the concern about insufficient encyclopedia writing. TewfikTalk 03:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I too share some concerns as above, but DK has shown skills in the major admin-related types of work. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Super Strong Support—With 15572 Total edits, 6611 in Main, 2970 in Wikipedia namespace, 467 in Template & 14 in Portal, I was puzzled why folks didn’t strongly support. So I went to look. Reviewed Portals & find that it is all good stuff—but mostly copy edit & category work. On to Main: not one single new article, nice copy edit on Sir Alan Sugar; nice adjustments to Académie française, & lots of good (some exceptionally good) clean-up. No great new articles perhaps, but I see absolutely nothing that suggests you don’t understand what it takes to be a sound administrator. If you’re going to delete articles, you need to understand how to generate articles—folks who’ve actually edited quite a bit are best—serious (encyclopedic) articles are good—the more serious contributions completed the better; you are light on new material, but certainly certainly long on new article creation, & editing—clearly better than 95% of all editors. If you’re going to field the emotional responses of blocked individuals or authors of deleted articles, you need to be rational—not easily annoyed—avoid overreactions & emotional tantrums; you’ll do fine indeed. If you’re going to enforce policy, you need to familiarize yourself with policy/procedure (know about moving articles, treating new users, marking for deletion, reasons for deletion, intervention against vandalism, articles for deletion closing/re-listing, mergers and reasonable rationale for blocking); you are certainly as sound as most others who’ve made admin when they made it. BOTTOM LINE: Congrats on making it David (unlikely to jinx you by congratulating you this far down the list). Make us proud! Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ashamed to admit that my review was superficial. Changes in italics or strikeout above. Changed based upon:
My lame excuse is simply that you have so much material it is hard to sort through it all. How can anyone provide less than strong support? Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 12:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. An overview of the areas this user focuses on seems to be lacking. Deletion pages seems to be the only place of project involvement. Mainly minor articles edits too. I'd rather the user have more experience.Voice-of-All 20:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ...I've deliberately limited myself to certain areas – for the sake of time management – namely some article initiation, some article revision, much article/topic area development (I hope the userspace pages linked from /To do would suffice to indicate), one particular area of structural debate and decision-making (WP:CfD) and, from time to time, WP:RM. (Might minor edits be acceptable as part of article development and/or "wikignoming"/"wikifairying"...?)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/David_Kernow&oldid=1143741185"