Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DrKiernan

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC).

DrKiernan (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

DrKiernan has unilaterally downgraded at least 267 pages from A-class with no consultation with the WikiProjects concerned and during a period when Community-wide discussion on A-class was (and is) ongoing.

Desired outcome

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.

Description

Date	Number of A-class articles
2008-12-13	615
2009-02-15	518
2009-03-08	328

Since early February, there have been Community-wide discussions on the nature and future of A-class assessments by the WikiProjects, to which DrKiernan has contributed to defend his/her opinion that these are redundant to FA and GA. At the same time, DrKiernan was also downgrading roughly half of the previous A-class assessments without any consultation with other editors. DrKiernan then attempted to use the small number of A-class articles as support for his/her view that the system has been virtually abandoned.

The downgrades also came just before the selection was due to start by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team for the first DVD version of Wikipedia articles, a selection which is based in part on WikiProject quality assessments. (The downgrades came after the selection had been carried out, apologies for any misunderstanding)

Attempts to reason with DrKiernan at the current assessment discussion page have failed: hence this RFC. DrKiernan has also failed to engage with people seeking to discuss the issue in a manner that is in keeping with consensus building policies.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

The 267 downgradings (since 1 February 2009): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267]
Extract from DrKiernan's user contributions, showing that the majority of the above edits were classed as minor: [268]
DrKiernan's knowledge that there was Community discussion going on, based on his/her first interventions on each discussion: [269] (5 February, for the RFC); [270] (25 February, for the follow-up page)
DrKiernan's claim that he/she had read all A-class articles: [271]
DrKiernan's claim that the low number of A-class articles (in no small part the result of his/her actions) meant that A-class had been abandoned: [272]
DrKiernan puts phrases like "ignorant morons" into the mouths of people who have never used them. [273]
Attempts to discuss the issue were met with a statement that the debate be archived. [274]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

[275]
[276]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

[277]
[278]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Physchim62 (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With great reluctance. I don't agree with all of the above, but I do agree that attempts to discuss this issue have been met with stonewalling, and that there needs to be community input into this. Hiding T 14:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Walkerma (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

I agree with the presentation of events here and that additional community input is needed to resolve the dispute, although I do not believe that DrKiernan's edits can really be classified as "disruptive," as anyone can reassess an article. The only problem that I see here is the lack of communication with WikiProjects about each article and the classification of the edits as minor. I also don't agree with WP:POINT being included in "Applicable policies and guidelines" section. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC) EDIT: It's also worth noting that many of the articles were changed from A-Class to List-Class, which was appropriate based on the ones which I looked at. It's the changes from A to C or B that should be discussed here, in my opinion. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the presentation of events here. I do believe that DrKiernan's edits are disruptive, and that this is a blatant violation of WP:POINT, given the nature of the edits and the ongoing discussion in which DrKiernan was participating. In regard to changing articles from A-Class to List-Class, keep in mind that discussion had been raised about separating the parameters for quality and type, which would allow, for example, an A-quality List-type article. Also, per WP:ASSESS, List-Class is a "non-standard grade" which might not be used by all WikiProjects. It's entirely possible (and seems to be the case) that some WikiProjects have chosen to assess lists using the SSCBA scale, rather than simply dumping them into a "list-class" bucket. cmadler (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a user from outside the wikiproject downgrading an article from A class (see Glacier) with no comment as to why, or even a note that this was the edit that they had done, for the sole purpose of getting rid of a class by unilateral decision is disruptive. However, after reinstating the A class DrKiernan did helpfully offer a couple of comments about the article (one citation needed tag and one unfinnished sentence) These were both easily dealt with in minutes.Polargeo (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have previously only found DrKiernan to be a productive commentator and editor at FAR. But demoting all those A-class articles unilaterally and then using the low number of A-class articles as proof that A-class has been abandoned is nothing short of a disruptive action that the community needs to clearly state is not acceptable. The tone of commentary DrKiernan has given on the assessment working group talk page has been borderline uncivil, IMO. I sincerely hope that this is just a case of a single discussion arc that became heated and that DrKiernan will learn from this experience and make the necessary changes in behavior. In short, I'm baffled that this happened b/c I previously only had good experiences with DrKiernan--mav (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the summary. It is purely disruptive to make a massive amount of reassessments for projects that you are not a member of, without prior discussion, and not reading their assessment guidelines (i.e. using non-standard grades which are not used by certain projects), and also using the mass downgrading as evidence that an assessment grade has been abandoned. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was shocked to encounter this, as I have always found Dr Kiernan a valuable contributor and fellow editor, and hope he will continue to be. Individual changes of assessments may not be disruptive per se, but so many changes across so many projects in such a short time frame is disruptive editing, and given the context of discussions about A-Class, a clear WP:POINT violation. Geometry guy 20:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response by DrKiernan

Minor edits

I tag assessments as minor edits, even when they are "promotions".[279] [280] [281]. There is no deception intended in labeling the alteration of a single letter as a minor edit.

Consensus

The changes follow consensus. All changes were made after the specific project's assessment guidelines were read, and are consistent with them.

For example, about 100 of Physchim62's examples are changing Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress lists from A-class to List-class. There is already consensus for this change: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Assessment#General rules for Congressional articles.

Similarly, look at a few more of the diffs Physchim62 provides: [282] [283] [284]. These are all articles in WikiProject Biography, which has a freeze on promotions as agreed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive/April 2008#Should A-Class review go? and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review. Besides, which these articles were "promoted" by a single editor, without going through the process that was agreed long ago, i.e. nomination and support from at least two uninvolved editors commenting on the review page.

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

The following discussion is archived to prevent people from endorsing an incomplete view. Please do not modify it. I'm not removing it outright, because it still yield some insight. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section or on the talk page. I'll be making a "new", more thought out, outside view sometimes tonight. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Headbomb

Hidden for convenience

WOW. Anyone who downgrades A-class on such a large scale, marking them as minor edits no less, without consulting with WikiProject first is clearly doing something wrong. Everyone can assess and re-assess article, yes, but this is not someone who happens to be pass by an article and raising C-class to B class, or downgrading C class to stub, this is systematic work. Systematic work needs consensus, and it doesn't seem like DrKiernan seeked consensus for these edits. This is near bot-work. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing a couple of these differences, it seems to me that there is a misrepresentation of what took place here. Many of these edits are changing A-class to List-class (nothing wrong with that), and in plenty of places, the articles were nowhere near A-class quality (all downgrade to start-class for examples are all warranted as far as I can tell, although I would've used C class in most of these cases). I'll review the edits more thoroughly later in the day. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

The peak reassessment rate was about six articles per minute, which strongly suggests that a script such as AWB was being used. Physchim62 (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better for you to withdraw this outside view until you have had a chance to look through the diffs and decide what you think. I'm not happy about endorsing a view which seems to be changing, however much I defend your right to make up your own mind on the basis of the evidence! Physchim62 (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought I'd have some time to edit my views before people endorsed commented, but I guess I was wrong.

Partly agree. Not commenting on the correctness of the re-assessments, but there is no way he read those articles when he re-assessed several within a minute and using a bot or AWB to assess articles defeats the whole point of a review before assessment. So Why 15:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I routinely assess articles for WP:PHYS, so I can offer some insight here. I can easily manage 5-6 a minute when going through unassessed categories, because they don't require a lot of time to review, as most are stub/start/C class, and you can tell which is which simply by going with length, layout, general appearance, images, etc... I generally need at least 30 seconds to gauge one as a B-class (debate usually is between C and B class). But that's "up-assessment". "Down assessment" can be made much more quickly, since an unreferenced paragraph/section is enough to downgrade to a B class. So if DrKiernan simply went through A-class articles to make sure they were still of A-class standards, he/she could easily get many article done in a short period of time. I'm fairly confident that the peak rate coincides with moving A-class to List-class, which as I said earlier, is not very controversial, and AWB is perfectly suited for that. If you find non-A class articles being switched to list-class articles, then you know this was simply working moving articles from a category to list-class (hence my proposal to seperate the type and the grade in the templates), rather than an effort to remove A-class from existance.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by WhatamIdoing

This view is given in my capacity as the editor that does nearly all article assessment for WP:MED, not as a regular watcher of RFC/U pages (for that, see the talk page). I have assessed more than 10,000 articles for this project. I'm also the person that wrote most of the guidance on how to assess a medicine-related article, and the primary contact for problems with assessment for the project.

I have no issue with DrKiernan's efforts to lobby for his/her POV at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Assessment working group. That's what that page exists for.

I have some concerns about DrKiernan's assessment work because DrKiernan seems to have an unfortunate and erroneous belief that every project uses identical standards. True: most projects use the default descriptions -- but not all of them. For example, some projects have rejected C-class. More reject the List-class: Changing "A-class" to "List-class" is an outright error according to some projects. Some have detailed criteria for certain classes. Some reject GA-class and FA-class for their project (preferring to assess these articles as either B-class or A-class). Some have specific comments that they want to record. Some have a complex multi-editor process for changes. Nearly all that have an A-class procedure in place require at least two editors to approve it. The processes are much more diverse (and therefore complicated) than most uninvolved editors believe.

Given the rate of changes and the sheer number of projects involved, it's unlikely that DrKiernan bothered to figure out what each actual project's standards were when making his/her changes. It's unlikely, for example, that DrKiernan looked at WP:BRAZIL's guidelines, because this change to list-class is not supported by the project. WP:PERU explicitly restricts their assessment to project members, so this change is illegitimate unless DrKiernan is a member (and yes: since the assessment is supposed to represent the project's own assessment of the article, that activity can legitimately be limited to members, instead of any editor that happens to drive by the article, although most projects, including WPMED, are thrilled to have intelligent assistance from anyone that has read their guidelines). WP:JAPAN requires detailed assessment for B-class; as a result, DrKiernan's effort to change to B class simply didn't work. This is just a small sampling, from the random ones that I clicked on to see what the fuss was about.

Assessment is not a one-size-fits-all activity. I request that DrKiernan stop changing project assessments unless s/he has first read that specific project's assessment guidelines and is making changes that are consistent with it.

Users who endorse this summary:

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agathoclea (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TRS-80 (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
–Drilnoth (T • C) 13:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Walkerma (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to write something like this, but WhatamIdoing nailed it, so there's not point in me writing my own stuff.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KrebMarkt 07:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Polargeo (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-MBK₀₀₄ 17:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geometry guy 20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by

Users who endorse this summary:

Proposed resolution

DrKiernan labeled assessments as minor edits. No deliberate deception was intended but the action did contribute to a misunderstanding. In future, assessments should not be labeled as minor edits.

Users who endorse this resolution:

DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2009
--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Polargeo (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--KrebMarkt 10:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding T 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, any assessment change should be indicated in the edit summary. cmadler (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Personally, I think that changing assessments between Stub, Start, and C-Classes are minor, as there really isn't much to discuss with those changes. Essentially, I think that any change in assessment that would make the article B-Class or higher or change it from any B+-Class level to another level is major... e.g., changing A to B OR B to A. Same with C to B or B to C, but not Start to C. The first three levels aren't really subject to interpretation like the others are, and the higher levels usually have more formal review processes.

Users who endorse this resolution:

–Drilnoth (T • C) 13:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Physchim62 (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fine too; with either alternative, everyone is agreed that assessment changes that involve grades above C-class should not be marked as minor edits. DrKiernan (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The script I use marks assessments as minor. It is minor as far as the talkpage is concerned. Agathoclea (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.