Wikipedia:Editor review/Sr13 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sr13

Sr13 (talk · contribs) To begin, I would like for you to see my first editor review before reading any further, as this is my second editor review. Now, I am now seriously considering adminship within the next month.

First and foremost, I have over 4000 edits and 7 months of experience (not counting the first two months of dormancy) Since I don't like to get wordy with things, I will present my resume-

• Helping out with the backlogs (especially stubsensor and double redirects),
• Patrolling the recent changes page and reverting vandalism or applying CSD templates as necessary using TWINKLE,
• Reporting IP's and users to WP:AIV, as necessary, and
• Nominating, contributing, and closing AfD's,
• and possibly others.

I have also improved my edit summary usage as well as contributed to the Punahou School article. I plan to contribute heavily within the coming weeks. Sr13 (T|C) 23:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

[edit] YechielMan

First: yes, I recommend that you apply for adminship. I can't guarantee that you'll pass, but you have an excellent chance. You have experience in all the requisite areas: you've made reports to WP:AIV and WP:RFPP, you've participated in discussions at WP:AFD, and you've improved articles by adding references. There are some weak points in your resume, but your credentials are strong enough to qualify for adminship by my (arbitrary) standards.

I'm not concerned with the "Lunchtime soccer" AFD that you referenced. You were right, and the other fellow didn't understand the policy. My approach in this kind of situation is to state my position clearly, offer maybe one rebuttal, and after that sit back and let the closing admin sort it out. But since you stayed focused on the policy issues, it was okay. I assume you are experienced and mature enough to handle other conflicts with similar judgment.

Don't worry about your early closures of AFD discussions, which have been reverted in at least one case. As an experienced non-admin, I can sympathize, and I've had exactly the same problem. My feeling is that the policy restricts the ability of non-admins too much, and sometimes if a decision is really obvious, I'll close it anyway, citing WP:IAR. (Actually, I've only done this twice, in both cases for speedy redirects.) Generally, a decision needs to be unanimous - if even one person has a different opinion, you can't close it as a non-admin. (An exception might be if that one person is the nominator, but WP:SK doesn't allow this.) Anyway, the content of your closures seems to be on target, and that indicates to me that you need admin tools and will know how to use them.

I normally advise users in some way to improve or expand. My advice to you is just to experiment. There are definitely other projects you can do that you aren't yet doing. The Community Portal (link at left sidebar) has plenty of ideas for you.

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 04:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michaelas10

It feels great that a user I've welcomed and helped in the beginning of his way is now on RfA (which is likely going to succeed). However, I hold several minor concerns of you that have almost persuaded me to go neutral and even oppose. The main one is likely your XfD commentary — while generally correct, it's advised that users provide a certain amount of research on the article, rather than simply citing the nominator or a guideline. Such !votes are rarely taken into account on the closing decision.

I will also demonstrate my disagreement with your various comments: (1) [1] — having an X amount of edits and X amount of time on Wikipedia in fact doesn't guarantee success or failure in an RfA. The reason users fail due to lack of them is because there wasn't enough long-term evidence to properly judge the candidate. We have many times promoted users with less than 3,000 edits and not promoted users with over 10,000 edits because they have or have not shown admin-like qualities. (2) [2] — each user is completely entitled to having opinions, unless their sole purpose is offending others. Searching for issues in your RfA opposers isn't a good sign either. (3) [3] — please avoid using bold in your comments, it can be taken as a ground for incivility. I disagree that merely being the largest supplier of electricity confers the article notability. Being the subject of several reliable secondary sources does.

Once again take a good heed of those constructive criticisms and good luck in becoming an admin. Michaelas¹⁰ 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your editor review. I would like point out the diffs you provided that may have been or be misunderstood.

• • Diff 1- I probably treated this argument like an editor review. The 4000 edits and six months was just my criteria (to measure experience and make correct judgements)
  • Diff 2- Has nothing to do with the RfA oppose (although one may assume so). He has been incivil several times during this AfD. After the deletion and merge on that particular article, he added the comments.
  • Diff 3- Okay, I will add sources ASAP.

Hopefully, you can understand my reasoning. Thanks again. Sr13 (T|C) 02:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A few more diffs: (4) [4] — an article which lacks an assertion of notability can be speedy deleted per WP:CSD. This article, however, did provide an assertion of notability ("a part of Mazari Tribe", "former president of All Sindh suzuki association"), but it wasn't sufficient to adhere the WP:N guidelines. (5) [5] — non-admins may only close AfD discussions with unambiguous "keep" decisions, where the nominator did not provide valid points and was the only one supporting deletion. Decisions which can be a subject to any dispute whatsoever are left for admins to make. Michaelas¹⁰ 15:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I misworded a little bit (although I cited the correct guideline) on diff 4 and bended the guidelines a bit on diff 5, and I apologize. I've actually started a discussion on that particular section here. Sr13 (T|C) 05:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

• View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   If anything, I am particularly pleased with helping with the development of WP:PJAA because I have introduced the idea on how to process articles in the WikiProject, as well as adding and improving the Punahou School article by adding references and other information.

2. 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?

   I would say that the most recent conflict I was in was the AfD for Lunchtime soccer, but the creator of the article clearly didn't understand Wikipedia guidelines. Another recent conflict (actually four months ago) was with Yrgh (now indef blocked) so I had to warn him here, here and here. Note that these were not conflicts over points of view, but rather warnings and explaining misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy. Of course, conflicts like this occasionally occur, and I was not to blame for any of the conflicts I mentioned above.