Review of Monty845
This is an editor review for admin. Please do not modify it.
Monty845 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Stats
- First edit: 23 March 2007 (realistically, March 2011)
- Total SUL edits: 24045[1]
- Article contribs: 35%
- Project space: 13%
- User rights: reviewer, rollbacker
- Summaries: 99%+
- Block log: clean
Recommendations
Some of these are just observations, things that might get noticed and you might have to explain at RfA, not necessarily critical but they might stand out a bit and need explaining as a candidate.
- CSD
Need to enable CSD logging in Twinkle
- See User:Monty845/Twinkle log
- Checked, looks fine.
- I was going to recommend redirects, when I noticed you had just added them. Good idea, will prevent confusion with no red links in the template.
- Checked, looks fine.
- PROD
Need to enable PROD logging Twinkle
- See User:Monty845/Twinkle log
- Checked, looks fine.
- AFD
435 different pages. Of the total votes, approx. 2/3rd to keep/merge and 1/3 to delete, which is consistent with the outcomes. Of the votes, you voted against consensus about 27% of the time, 73% was in consensus or there was no consensus to the vote. Slightly low side of the range but fine (70-90% I consider "normal"), although a chunk of those you voted to KEEP and they were redirected. The software calls them a miss, but it really isn't one in my eyes as the term is obviously worth keeping. Your record when nominating articles for deletion is slightly worse, in the 68%-70-% range but still acceptable.
- Did some quick checks and yes, the software has you improperly attributed to several misses. Added to what I consider "near misses" (you vote merge, it is deleted, etc.) and that likely pushes you up in the high 70s, over 3/4 of the time you vote is consistent with consensus. I don't trust anyone at 100%, likely "me too" votes tagged on at the end, so 75-90% is the sweet spot for realistic difference of opinion and a willingness to express it, yet an understanding of the policies involved.
- NAC AFD
I still think NAC closes of AFDs are overrated. They teach you some process, but they don't require a great amount of judgement. You closed 20, 18 were in the majority of the vote, 2 were not (the software incorrectly states 16/4). Of the 2, 1 was a technical (venue) close[2], 1 was a non-controversial (compromise) close [3]. Nothing overly bold, no mistakes.
- Copyright
This area, I will just go from memory. You and I have differences of opinion on some of the nuances of copyright policy, but only in areas that are legitimately grey areas, and it is clear you have a full grasp of the copyright policy. Any differences you have had with others is a matter of interpretation, not from a lack of knowledge. This is likely one of your stronger areas. (although on a completely personal note, I still think I was right about Skillet ;)
- Sanctions (via [4])
None that I can find. You have typically been on the clean side of the sanction stick.
- Monthly contribs
Obviously a large gap at the beginning, which is why just state in an RfA that you "really" started in March 2011. There is a 3 month gap, but that isn't a killer as you have still had more than 12 months of actual contributions. In your case, consistency isn't an asset, but it shouldn't be a problem either.
- Admin area experience
Solid experience. I could expand on this, but you are stronger in admin related areas than in content editing, to be blunt. Lots of vandalism work, some 3RR reporting, generally policy discussion, etc.
- Articles created
Seven, short, dbs and a list. It is no shocker that this isn't your strongest attribute. This is likely to draw a few negative votes from a select portion of the voting public, but not everyone is a prolific author and I think your other attributes more than offset this. But again, not everyone will agree.
- User talk
You have a lot of automated edits here, but since you work vandalism, it is unavoidable. I notice your user page talk comments are much like your meta comments, very pithy and neutral and I think an asset to you. You communicate well, which is one of the most important aspects of being an admin.
- Automated edits
55%, which is kind of high. Of course, it depends on the kind of work you do, so it isn't necessarily bad, but people will notice it.
- Talk archive
Properly setup and archived with the bot, which is good. Expect them to grow exponentially once you have the bit. No problems here.
- Misc.
Summaries fine, userboxes fine, signature not quite as fine, and someone (Keepscases in particular, but others as well) might argue that the 845 portion is out of compliance with accessibility goals since the contrast is low. I noticed you have average 1.66 edits per article is on the low side, which will be noticed by voters who are primarily content creators. Again, it depends on where you focus, but it shows you don't focus on developing articles, and more on the maintenance side.
- Personal
I want to dig a little more, but one thing I have noticed is that you aren't too quick to judge, which is an asset and why I assumed you were already an admin. Part of this is likely your training, but I assume it is at least as much your nature as well. It is no secret that I am not a fan of blocking where other options are available (excepting trolls/socks/vandals, which blocking is the only option). For me to recommend or nominate someone, I need to feel comfortable that they share this same general perspective, which I think you do, but I want to verify with more extensive research, as to insure there wouldn't be any surprises at an RfA.
Final
I've looked around a fair amount and find nothing but good. You are ready to run today as far as I'm concerned. I think what people will appreciate is that you are balanced candidate: you know the policies, but you explain things using common sense and in plain English, instead of a bunch of policy links and wikispeak. You are informed and pithy. You maintain an even tone in your comments and never add to the drama, instead your common sense approach has a tendency to reduce it. You have a broad amount of experience in different areas and excellent "clue". And you know when to stay out of discussion, which is just as important as knowing when to jump in. The only concerns are a lack of heavy content creation, but I think most people will see that your other skills more than offset this one weakness. Obviously, we need excellent content creators at Wikipedia, but those aren't the same skills it takes to be a good admin, and a good admin makes it easier for those content creators to do what they do best, in a hassle free environment. I'm pretty sure you will be the kind of admin that those content creators will be happy to have around.
Whenever you are ready and if you so choose, I would be happy to nominate you at RfA. If you would like a co-nominator as well, I know several that would be excellent for the task, but of course, it is your decision. I'm confident that the majority will see you as a net positive at RfA, and I'm glad you are considering a run. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Observations by others
Freeform, feel free to offer advice or support.