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-
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
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)
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. Michaelas 10 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully, you can understand my reasoning. Thanks again. Sr13 ( T| C) 02:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Questions
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-
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
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)
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. Michaelas 10 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully, you can understand my reasoning. Thanks again. Sr13 ( T| C) 02:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Questions