MBisanz ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Wow, has it really been two years since my last Admin Review? Back then, I had a little over 27,000 admin actions, now it's over 68,000. I've been an admin for just over four years and a crat for about two and a half years. Also an oversighter, steward, and BAG member. I suppose it would be a good time to get some feedback. See also, User:MBisanz/Done. MBisanz talk 22:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- You're probably imperfect, but you're good at hiding it. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to be an exceptionally dedicated and trustworthy volunteer, well worth your keep. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for seeking feedback. Definitely no complaints from me, all good. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please note this is all out of love, and respecting your request for feedback, not sycophancy. These are not complaints, either:
- http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?max=250&name=MBisanz shows a damning "vote didn't match result" of 36.8%; we've just had a snow closure on an RfA with 36.6%. I'll grant you they're not recent results, and there are a lot of other riders, but it's something to reflect on; your voting seems indicative of a deletionist attitude.
- You've closed one AfD in the last 3 years. It might be an idea to keep your hand in; close one a month perhaps? I've reviewed some of your non-consensus closes, and they seem perfectly reasonable. Coupled with the above, it indicates you are very good at assessing the consensus of opinions presented to you, but perhaps your independently formed opinions don't jell with the broader community.
- A review of your use of edit summaries shows 100% use; an examination of your edits shows a use of meaningful, useful edit summaries of about 1 or 2%. A summary ought to reassure me that there's no need to examine your edit in detail; "d" could mean done, or it could mean "deleted nonsense, replied to another point"; it's obvious that "cmt" is a comment, but what was the gist of it; and why even summarize it as a comment, it is a talk page after all? Was it approval, disapproval, a vindictive-bile-filled-rant, a surprising new point, some hard data? I have over 2200 pages on my watchlist, and I don't want to review every edit.
- Your editing rate in article space has really died down. I understand and support you becoming administratively focused. It might be an idea to keep your hand in 'tho.
- This is not backed up with any data: You seem to have a permissive attitude to bots; when closing BRfAs/approving trials I'd appreciate an explanation of your reasoning.
- Let me join in with the other editors in showering you with praise and words of appreciation. Thanks for your extensive efforts to build an encyclopedia.
Josh Parris 04:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I like this! I will respond in the morning. MBisanz talk 04:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- This was a fascinating review that confirmed some things I already knew and gave me other points to work on.
- I'm probably more deletionist than inclusionist, but being a deletionist or an inclusionst has never seemed to be determinative as AFD has enough voices to balance out outliers like me on individual topics. I also see AFD as a sort of common law process by which interpretations of policy change overtime. I'll note that DGG is at 28% in the other direction. But a fair point of feedback.
- Yes, this makes sense to me. While I see commentors in AFD as article advocates (for or against deletion), I see AFD closers as judges or umpires. Even if they think something differently then the community, they have to call the balls and strikes fairly to maintain the community's faith in the process. I'll try to close more going forward.
- Also something I was aware of. I edit a lot of fairly low-traffic pages or engage in a lot of mundane issues, so I don't necessarily think of people as being interested in what I've done or said. Hence, the undistinctive edit summaries. I can't promise I'll be more informative at places like CHU/BAG where I am usually the only person, but on actual discussions like AN, I will try to be more descriptive.
- I long for the day I can expand our coverage on certain topics. There are a number of buildings I want to write about and I even had Sonia make me a map for a future series on the FHLBs. Hopefully as law school winds down, I'll feel the creative urge to write more.
- I am very permissive with BRFAs and this is a change from the perspective I brought in say 2007/08. Most bot operators know their limitations and know what they're doing. I'm willing to give them extra leeway because they're usually right or fix it when they're wrong. Also, most bot tasks are super-uncontroversial, so I would rather not delay tasks with unnecessary bueaurcracy. In a few cases (Kumiko) this is not the case, but overall, I think operators appreciate the additional discretion and don't run away with things. Also, BAG is always understaffed and there is the desire to keep things moving.
- Thanks again for the feedback. I do appreciate your time in reviewing me. MBisanz talk 19:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Reviewed per request. It is very clear that you spend a considerable amount of time greasing the wheels of Wikipedia's internal workings, and for that alone you receive a passing grade. Your continued efforts to welcome new Wikipedians (You were the one to welcome me to EN Wikipedia back in 2009 even) and providing valuable input in consensus discussions only heightens my rating of you as an essential component in the Great Wikipedia Machine. Thank you for your contributions. - Kenneaal ( talk) 13:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Another admin that closes AFDs very well. Appreciate his willingness to take on even the very long and complicated AFDs and usually does so very fairly to the consensus. I also appreciate his summaries when the discussion is particularly controversial. Mkdw talk 07:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your WP:Village stocks goof has had me in stitches with laughter. Other than that you seem to be doing it right over at CHU. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
MBisanz ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Wow, has it really been two years since my last Admin Review? Back then, I had a little over 27,000 admin actions, now it's over 68,000. I've been an admin for just over four years and a crat for about two and a half years. Also an oversighter, steward, and BAG member. I suppose it would be a good time to get some feedback. See also, User:MBisanz/Done. MBisanz talk 22:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- You're probably imperfect, but you're good at hiding it. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to be an exceptionally dedicated and trustworthy volunteer, well worth your keep. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for seeking feedback. Definitely no complaints from me, all good. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please note this is all out of love, and respecting your request for feedback, not sycophancy. These are not complaints, either:
- http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?max=250&name=MBisanz shows a damning "vote didn't match result" of 36.8%; we've just had a snow closure on an RfA with 36.6%. I'll grant you they're not recent results, and there are a lot of other riders, but it's something to reflect on; your voting seems indicative of a deletionist attitude.
- You've closed one AfD in the last 3 years. It might be an idea to keep your hand in; close one a month perhaps? I've reviewed some of your non-consensus closes, and they seem perfectly reasonable. Coupled with the above, it indicates you are very good at assessing the consensus of opinions presented to you, but perhaps your independently formed opinions don't jell with the broader community.
- A review of your use of edit summaries shows 100% use; an examination of your edits shows a use of meaningful, useful edit summaries of about 1 or 2%. A summary ought to reassure me that there's no need to examine your edit in detail; "d" could mean done, or it could mean "deleted nonsense, replied to another point"; it's obvious that "cmt" is a comment, but what was the gist of it; and why even summarize it as a comment, it is a talk page after all? Was it approval, disapproval, a vindictive-bile-filled-rant, a surprising new point, some hard data? I have over 2200 pages on my watchlist, and I don't want to review every edit.
- Your editing rate in article space has really died down. I understand and support you becoming administratively focused. It might be an idea to keep your hand in 'tho.
- This is not backed up with any data: You seem to have a permissive attitude to bots; when closing BRfAs/approving trials I'd appreciate an explanation of your reasoning.
- Let me join in with the other editors in showering you with praise and words of appreciation. Thanks for your extensive efforts to build an encyclopedia.
Josh Parris 04:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I like this! I will respond in the morning. MBisanz talk 04:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- This was a fascinating review that confirmed some things I already knew and gave me other points to work on.
- I'm probably more deletionist than inclusionist, but being a deletionist or an inclusionst has never seemed to be determinative as AFD has enough voices to balance out outliers like me on individual topics. I also see AFD as a sort of common law process by which interpretations of policy change overtime. I'll note that DGG is at 28% in the other direction. But a fair point of feedback.
- Yes, this makes sense to me. While I see commentors in AFD as article advocates (for or against deletion), I see AFD closers as judges or umpires. Even if they think something differently then the community, they have to call the balls and strikes fairly to maintain the community's faith in the process. I'll try to close more going forward.
- Also something I was aware of. I edit a lot of fairly low-traffic pages or engage in a lot of mundane issues, so I don't necessarily think of people as being interested in what I've done or said. Hence, the undistinctive edit summaries. I can't promise I'll be more informative at places like CHU/BAG where I am usually the only person, but on actual discussions like AN, I will try to be more descriptive.
- I long for the day I can expand our coverage on certain topics. There are a number of buildings I want to write about and I even had Sonia make me a map for a future series on the FHLBs. Hopefully as law school winds down, I'll feel the creative urge to write more.
- I am very permissive with BRFAs and this is a change from the perspective I brought in say 2007/08. Most bot operators know their limitations and know what they're doing. I'm willing to give them extra leeway because they're usually right or fix it when they're wrong. Also, most bot tasks are super-uncontroversial, so I would rather not delay tasks with unnecessary bueaurcracy. In a few cases (Kumiko) this is not the case, but overall, I think operators appreciate the additional discretion and don't run away with things. Also, BAG is always understaffed and there is the desire to keep things moving.
- Thanks again for the feedback. I do appreciate your time in reviewing me. MBisanz talk 19:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Reviewed per request. It is very clear that you spend a considerable amount of time greasing the wheels of Wikipedia's internal workings, and for that alone you receive a passing grade. Your continued efforts to welcome new Wikipedians (You were the one to welcome me to EN Wikipedia back in 2009 even) and providing valuable input in consensus discussions only heightens my rating of you as an essential component in the Great Wikipedia Machine. Thank you for your contributions. - Kenneaal ( talk) 13:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Another admin that closes AFDs very well. Appreciate his willingness to take on even the very long and complicated AFDs and usually does so very fairly to the consensus. I also appreciate his summaries when the discussion is particularly controversial. Mkdw talk 07:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your WP:Village stocks goof has had me in stitches with laughter. Other than that you seem to be doing it right over at CHU. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)