User:Dennis Brown/RfA/Basalisk

Review of Basalisk

This is an editor review for admin. Please do not modify it. Started Sept. 4, 2012

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

Stats

• First edit: 20 April 2007 (realistically, Sept 2011)
• Total SUL edits: 5,909
• Article contribs: 35%
• Project space: 17%
• User rights:reviewer, rollbacker
• Summaries: 97%
• 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

Lots of blue links. CSD A3 in particular. I would strongly recommend going through your CSD log and adding a line to the last several months on every blue link that can be reasonably explained, such as (Now a redirect) or similar. Some you won't be able to explain, they were just bad calls, but most of those are older. Bad CSDs can kill a candidacy in a hurry. Get more familiar with the CSD criteria. You need to be able to almost quote it, and really understand it.

PROD

Go into TW and add a PROD log, same as CSD log, even if you don't use PROD a lot.

AFD

I look for candidates to have a combined "same as consensus" and "no consensus" rating in the 70-90% range. Higher might indicate a lot of "me too" votes, lower means you might be out of step with the consensus. You are at 87%, which is rock solid. You only have 187 AFD votes but that isn't unusual for the number of edits you have. Looks good.

NAC AFD

It looks like 3 were reversed, but that is just a software glitch in the scripts. You have 20 of them, that is more than enough. To me, NAC closures aren't important as they don't really require much judgement.

Copyright

I don't see enough participation relating to copyright to offer an opinion, but I strongly suggest you take the time and become familiar with our copyright policies, as this is often a sticking point at RfA and it is an important one. I had to do a great deal of study in this area, and I was already very, very familiar with US Copyright law, but we don't use US law, we use Wikipedia policy. Understanding the real differences (and nuances) in Fair Use, Public Domain and the CC licenses (including the "no commercial use" version, which is not allowed here except under Fair Use) including when it is acceptable to use Fair Use (not in a BLP, as it is "possible" to get a free equiv. if you just go up and snap one). No criticism, just a note to be sure and study this.

Sanctions

I see you have only been hauled to ANI once [1], which wasn't a fault of your own, no sanctions. I actually worked that case. You've commented in around 14 other cases. Nothing unusual that I found.

Monthly contribs

Technically doesn't matter, but it does. Even though you started here several years ago, for all intent and purposes, you have about 1 year under your belt. That is adequate, but I would be careful to not overstate your length of service at RfA, else it will backfire.

Admin area experience

I see you CSD a lot of articles, another two edged sword. Some strict inclusionists see that as a negative thing, but as long as your ratio is improving, it shouldn't be a huge issue. You have a few contribs to ANI, which is fine, and a reasonable amount of experience at AFD. While I don't see an overwhelming amount of it, I would strongly suggest avoiding sarcasm in Wikipedia space, like ANI, AFD, SPI, etc. We are so international that sarcasm is often perceived as simply being a smart ass or demeaning (see WP:BIAS) and as an admin, I try to completely avoid it simply because it is too easy to cause a misunderstanding. It is also not an effective means of communications with other cultures. Even between the UK and US, sarcasm can be easily misinterpreted.

Articles created

Only three. I think I had around 20 when I sought admin and it lost me a few votes, but not too many. Creating more articles would be very helpful. Not just stubs, but at least small articles. Also, your article contribs at 35% is a little on the low side. 50% is golden, I had 40% which is acceptable, but many editors want to know that you really understand the trials and tribulations of being an editor before giving you the admin bit, so I would work on the number of manual article edits.

User talk

I notice most of your contribs in the user talk page area are automated, due particularly to CSDing articles. Many editors such as myself like to see how you interact with other editors. What I am seeing is a very direct, no nonsense style. This is a two edged sword as you have to be careful not to come across too strongly, particularly if you have the admin bit. It is good to be to the point and pithy, rather than vague and verbose, and I don't see a particular problem, but I just add that anyone who is mildly blunt has to be careful if they get the admin bit as people take your words more seriously. Again, no problem, just a note to be careful and sensitive to new users.

Automated edits

1766 automated, around 29%, which is a little high but not particularly problematic. To compare, over half of my "warnings" on user pages are hand written and even though I use a ton of automation as an admin, my percentage is still less than 12%, which is likely lower than average for an admin.

Talk archive

They go back a year, which is fine. No problems there.

Misc.

Summaries are at 97%, needs to be as close to 100% as possible. Always use them. I would ditch the DGAF userbox, personally, as some are overly sensitive about those. Your signature is fine.

Personal

Being a physician is somewhat rare here, isn't likely to hurt. I would expect to see you more involved in medical areas.

SPI

I have recommended to a CU that you be brought in as an SPI trainee, by the way. I noticed that you have already requested as much. This doesn't mean you will, only that I have recommended it. SPI is an excellent training ground for admins. It isn't exciting, and it is a lot of work, but you get exposed to a variety of circumstances. My last successful candidate, Berean Hunter, was an SPI clerk for a few months before his RfA. Actually, that is where I met him and first asked him to consider an admin run. A Checkuser (Coren) and myself nominated him.

Final

You have some excellent attributes that would be an asset and I think you would be a net plus with the admin bit. I would suggest taking the next 3 months to work on some of the issues I've highlighted above just to shore up some weaknesses, put more time between CSD mistakes and the RfA, and to work on adding article edits, as well as improving your automated to manual edit ratio. I think your overall demeanor is good, but need to just be cautious with the bluntness and sarcasm, which aren't huge problems for you, but might be with the admin bit so it is better to develop slightly milder techniques now. I don't think you need to wait longer than 3 months, but I would think of it as a transition period to allow you to mentally prepare for an RfA run and to help change your perspective from that of an advocate to that of a more neutral observer, the role of admins. Assuming you worked on these minor issues and could bolster your edits a little bit higher (8000 is a good minimum number), then I would likely be willing to nominate you for RfA. I don't think the delay is required but I do think it will drastically increase your chances at success. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I would wholeheartedly support Dennis, although I would suggest that waiting three months is maximal - I would support now. Very few RfA candidates are perfect. Incidentally, physicians are not all that rare here. Here I am. I look forward to supporting, or co-nominating, at your RfA.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)