User:Dennis Brown/RfA/BDD

Review of BDD

This is an editor review for admin. Please do not modify it.

BDD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Stats

• First edit: 2004, but never very active before Feb 2012.
• Total SUL edits: 5,541
• Article contribs: 55%
• Project space: 12%
• User rights: None.
• Summaries: 96%, acceptable, make sure you always do from here on out.
• 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

In Twinkle, there is an option enable CSD logging in your user space. You need to enable this to make it easier for others to review your history.

PROD

Same as above, in Twinkle, opt in.

AFD

210 articles, 77% of the time with consensus or no consensus was found on article, ok. Two of three votes were to delete, consistent with average outcomes so ok. Total number ok. Not impressive, but overall ok here.

NAC AFD

You've done a few, a quick glance looks fine. I don't think they are as important as a few others might think them, since NAC closures don't require much judgment.

Copyright

I'm not seeing a lot of exposure in this area. That is fine, as not everyone works with copyright issues, but admins are expected to have a solid understanding of the fundamentals. This includes US law to a degree, but our policies are more strict and take precedence. I would strongly recommend familiarizing yourself with copyright policy here, including fully understanding the different Creative Commons licenses, understanding what Public Domain is and what actually qualifies, and how to deal with people making false claims regarding copyright. The key isn't to become an expert, it is to know when to ask someone else who is, to get involved. You will likely see copyright questions at an RfA as that is a constant problem here.

Sanctions

Looks clean.

Monthly contribs

No one expects the same contribs each month, we all are volunteers, but a degree of consistency is always beneficial. Here, most people would say that you are still a relative new user because you haven't had consistent edits until recently. Not a bad thing, but most editors want to see a year of regular contribs to give the bit to someone. That would put you around Feb.

Admin area experience

I see you at the Reference desk a fair amount, no shocker for a librarian. Some AFD voting, which is good, and a wide variety of project work sorting deletions and the like, which is good. I don't see a lot of dispute resolution type experience, such as at WP:DRN or WP:ANI but not everyone is suited to that. Participating more at the Reference desk and maybe the help desk would probably be better suited to you, and serves a few purposes. Obviously, those areas are often understaffed, your background is perfect for it, and it hones skills at interacting with a wide variety of people, which is something you will be doing as admin. A look at my talk page makes that clear, editors will seek you out and drop problems on your lap often enough, so it helps to have a well rounded set of experience in dealing with many different problems, and many different cultures.

Articles created

Technically, 8 created but that includes redirects and db pages. Not your strongest suit when running. How many you have created isn't the most important metric, but some people will oppose if you don't have say, 20 real articles created. The key is whether or not they show up at RfA that day. Chasing down a few red links and creating real articles, even if short, is helpful. The fact that your article contributions are over 50% is a big plus, and keeping it at least 50% will serve you well.

User talk

No problems in communicating, but you don't do it very often. This is another metric whose importance depends on the individual voter. For me, it is one of the most important measuring sticks simply because it gives me a good idea of a persons demeanor and how they interact with others, as well as their inclination to talk through problems. People will look at the talk page contribs regardless of how important they are to them, as that is still the best way to "get to know" the candidate.

Automated edits

None, which is problematic. You should install Twinkle, at [1]. Just check off the stuff you want, then save at the bottom of the page. I recommend installing Twinkle, HotCat (makes it much faster to add categories to articles) and maybe ProveIt if you do lots of cites. The key with automated edits is to not have them dominate your edit ratio (less than 25% of the total) but you need to be familiar with how to do it, as most of the admin functions are performed by automated scripts, ie: buttons rather than edits. In particular, Twinkle is very handy for vandalism patrol and other repetitive tasks.

Talk archive

I see you have been archiving your talk pages, excellent. You will need to look at having MiszaBot doing it for you eventually. You can look at my talk page and steal the code, I keep rather large archive file sizes. And of course, the user page for User:MiszaBot III for more info. It isn't required at all, just a tip, and you can archive how ever you want, but once you become an admin, you will see your talk page visits jump up dramatically. My talk page is likely busier than average for an admin, but I'm one of those admins that tends to get involved in helping others more often than writing articles. Your mileage may vary depending how what all you get involved with as an admin.

Misc.

Summaries, userboxes, signature are all fine. I do think that you need to read up on then get permissions assigned for rollbacker, reviewer and file mover. You will find a bunch of links at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, but you can just ask me for them, perhaps one a week, after you have read up on each and are familiar with the guidelines on use, including some of the pitfalls (rollback in particular can get you in trouble if you rollback good faith edits). Since being an admin requires these same skills, and they are automatically part of the admin suite of tools, spending time now with them is almost required. Read, then ask for each on my talk page. I don't see any problem granting them to you, but prefer you read up before I throw any tools at you. You will have new options in the menus once granted.

Personal

You are a librarian, one of my favorite types of occupation for an admin. The majority of the "admin duties" don't really use the tools, but instead fill a role similar to being a librarian: helping people. It is about pointing them to the right information, explaining policies in plain English, fixing things, cleaning up after others. I see you have some basic language skills in German and Spanish as well, which are also exceptional tools since we do get some cross-wiki action, and those are two of the most needed language skills for that.

Final

I tend to think you are about 6 months out from an RfA, although I wouldn't rule out running in 3. The big issue is contribution rates, which have been very low until recently and that is looked at closely by most !voters. Most people want to see a degree of consistency over time to give someone the admin bit, as it isn't helpful to have an admin who only edits a few dozen times a month. I don't see any particular problems, which is good. We all have areas where we are weak or need improvement or just more experience, so the key to becoming an admin is to at least become familiar with a little bit of everything. Admins don't have to be able to solve every problem, but they do have to be able to recognize them and know how to direct them to the appropriate area or other admin for resolution, which is why having a broad set of experiences is important. Being a librarian, there is probably going to be a bit of pressure to create a few more articles. Volunteering more at the WP:Help Desk and WP:Reference Desk will likely be the best way for you to demonstrate that you are capable of handling the bit, and show that you know what you are doing. You likely want to avoid ANI, but familiarizing yourself with WP:DRN and perhaps even helping mediate a few content disputes will help demonstrate your ability to remain neutral and help others reach consensus. All admins must have some experience in dealing with contentious content disputes as that is very common here. From what I see, you fully have the ability to be an admin and just need to get some more experience with the processes here, a more steady track record of contributions, and a little more exposure dealing with a variety of editors. Another advantage of helping out in the Wikipedia areas is that others get the chance to actually see you in action, doing "adminy" things, a preview of sorts. This can increase positive turnout at RfA and makes it easier to overlook any small experience gaps in other areas. The primary criteria for admin is "Can I trust this person with the tools?", and I don't see any problems there. Working on these small issues will make that clear to others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)