User:Dennis Brown/RfA/Samwalton9
Review of Samwalton9 (Sam Walton)
This is an editor review for admin. Please do not modify it.
Samwalton9 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Stats
- First edit:December 2011, really became active March 2013
- Total SUL edits: Just over 8,000
- Article contribs: 4400+ / 57%
- Project space: 899 / 12%
- User rights: accountcreator, autoreviewer, reviewer
- Summaries: Good
- 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. Some areas may be intentionally blank if there is nothing to add about that area.
- CSD
Most of the blue links are copyvio or copy/paste, which typically get remade, so no problem.
- PROD
No logs. Not required, but would have been nice.
- AFD
75 is a modest amount but reasonable. Ratios are square in the middle, telling me they were sincere votes, not stacking
- NAC AFD
I don't really care about these.
- Copyright
Didn't see anything, will look more.
- Sanctions (via [1])
Nothing I can find.
- Monthly contribs
Good
- Admin area experience
Modest but acceptable
- Articles created
Very good with GA, DYK, FA, one of his best assets
- User talk
- Automated edits
35% is a lot higher than I really like. Admin are forced to use a lot of automated edits, yet mine is below 10%. This isn't a deal killer, but some people may object to it and it does indicate you may need to spend more time with individual messages than automated. This is balanced with the type of work you do. If you are doing nothing but vandalism fighting, higher is normal. Still, I would work on using individual messages whenever possible, as they are more likely to encourage discussion because you are trying to talk WITH them, not AT them.
- Talk archive
Already archiving, which is good.
- Misc.
User page is perfect, tells a little about you, but is mainly a working space. Signature is fine. Userboxes are fine. A few are political in nature, but that is fine, it just turns off some people who are against what you are for. Procedurally, no problem at all.
- Personal
Let me offer these tips: People are going to find mistakes. Best to research before commenting, and always admit any mistake up front. For that matter, at RFA, you should avoid answering any question quickly. It is a week long process, no one reasonable expects an answer 30 minutes after it is asked every time. Better to mull it over and make sure they are asking what you think they are asking. Some like to ask tricky questions, cleverly worded. If a question is personal and you just don't want to answer it, politely say so. Consider giving reassurance as to the core of the question, but the answers are optional (yet wisely answered unless there is a good reason). You are going to get stressed out, the process does that to you. This is why you should take your time, don't take ANYTHING personal (remember, they don't know you, they just think they do). Just be yourself. Even if someone deserves to be called a jerk, you have to rise above the ad hominem and answer as if they weren't being a jerk. You will find you often have to do that as admin, too.
RFA is an odd gauntlet. I'm convinced that if $x editor runs one week, he might pass 100-0. The next week, it might be a drama-fest, no holds barred fight. It isn't the candidate, it is the system. This is why I say take it calm. At best, you can encourage a calm discussion but it isn't guaranteed. At worst, you can get defensive and encourage a system that spirals downward. Oddly, none of that has anything to do with fitness to be admin. With you, I wouldn't expect any major drama, but you should always expect a few people to get cocky or just be mistaken in their oppose rationales. Ignore it.
Don't respond to every oppose or comment. If 4 or 5 people oppose for the same reason but you think you can address it, you might pick out the last comment and respond with a calm, reassuring paragraph. Generally speaking, the less you comment in the voting section, the better, as every comment you make is one more they can debate you with.
Questions
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I would probably start in areas such as AfD, CSD and RPP where I feel confident with my current knowledge, starting with uncontroversial closes/deletions/protections. Having processed a few hundred requested accounts I could also see myself working at WP:UAA. I’m happy and enthusiastic to learn how to be useful in other admin areas, in particular those which are most backlogged, but wouldn't undertake any admin actions I wasn't yet comfortable in my understanding of. The admin tools would also help generally, such as in the help areas where users often ask about deleted pages or otherwise need an admin.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Most of my contributions here have been in content creation, with Proteus probably being the best article I’ve been a primary contributor to, hopefully close to FA. Equally, I’m proud generally of the articles I’ve written on scientists, in particular those on women scientists; a fairly under-represented topic. I also consider my time spent helping new editors at the Teahouse or on the IRC help channel to have been time well spent.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I don’t think I’ve been in any dispute which has caused me any particular stress but this dispute at University of Liverpool is probably the closest I’ve come to a ‘conflict’, after some reverting and talk page messages I took the issue to WP:3O and the dispute was resolved. The only other dispute of interest I can think of is at The Principle where I and other editors have disagreed over content on multiple occasions. My first messages at The Principle were somewhat aggressive and reading back I shouldn't have discouraged someone so heavily from making an edit, that's definitely an exchange I've improved since. Having only been actively editing for 7 months I didn't fully understand this issue at the time, but have since understood why the Reddit post was a less than great idea, even if done in good faith. During debates on Wikipedia I always try to explain myself, and where necessary Wikipedia policies, as well as I can and am more than happy to concede where I realise I'm in the wrong.
Candidate area
Please list any GAs, FAs, DYK or other contributions. If you speak any foreign languages or have other noteworthy degrees or skills, list those as well. Also add any problems that are likely to be brought up at RfA, such as past blocks, bad disputes, Arb actions, or similar.
- A full list of GAs/DYKs/large contributions can be found on my user page.
- I can speak Welsh and am currently working on my master's degree in astrophysics.
- I haven't been blocked, brought to ANI, or any other similarly severe dispute. I have had some content debates, listed above. Sam Walton (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Final
- Give me a day or two to read some of your talk page contribs, but I'm pretty sure I'm all for nominating you. I have someone in mind whom I think would be a great conom if they were willing. If you trust my judgement, let me know. Dennis - 2¢ 17:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would be more than happy to accept, and trust your decision as to the conom. Thanks again for this review, Sam Walton (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- You might notice I have a lot of slots and checks and stuff here, but that is part of the vetting system, and more potential candidates should be vetted this way, or a similar way. That is part of why they fail. Again, any shortcoming should be admitted up front so it isn't a big deal, but when its found in the middle of RFA, it becomes a big deal. I'm going to email someone about conoming and have them look here and do their homework. Dennis - 2¢ 17:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Dennis, how is everything going? Sam Walton (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Going to be busy today, it's monday. These things usually take many days, better to be thorough. I have an admin perfect to conom, waiting for them to finish their background check. Dennis - 2¢ 12:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Still haven't quit ;) Hoping to be ready in a couple of days. This week at work was extra busy, and I don't like to do RFA type things while working, the distractions can mean errors. Dennis - 2¢ 20:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- No worries! Ready when you are. Sam Walton (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- What are your thoughts on this? Sam Walton (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- First, we are running behind schedule still. Still dealing with some family stuff. As for bitcoin, some might not like it and strongly prefer onwiki "rallying of the troops", but it seems honest enough, and oddly enough, might bring some new editors or ideas into the article. It is a risky thing to do, unquestionably, but risky doesn't mean bad in my eyes. If I'm advising as an experienced editor to another, I would say this is something that should be done cautiously and sparingly, as we don't want a flood of IP vandals because of the attempt, but I think this effort fits into that mould. At worst, some will call it a mistake, others will call it an attempt to bring in fresh eyes. Anyone finding malice is simply looking for it where it doesn't exist. Dennis - 2¢ 19:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- No problem I'm in no rush, just remembered about that in particular last night. Sam Walton (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- First, we are running behind schedule still. Still dealing with some family stuff. As for bitcoin, some might not like it and strongly prefer onwiki "rallying of the troops", but it seems honest enough, and oddly enough, might bring some new editors or ideas into the article. It is a risky thing to do, unquestionably, but risky doesn't mean bad in my eyes. If I'm advising as an experienced editor to another, I would say this is something that should be done cautiously and sparingly, as we don't want a flood of IP vandals because of the attempt, but I think this effort fits into that mould. At worst, some will call it a mistake, others will call it an attempt to bring in fresh eyes. Anyone finding malice is simply looking for it where it doesn't exist. Dennis - 2¢ 19:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- What are your thoughts on this? Sam Walton (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- No worries! Ready when you are. Sam Walton (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Dennis, how is everything going? Sam Walton (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- You might notice I have a lot of slots and checks and stuff here, but that is part of the vetting system, and more potential candidates should be vetted this way, or a similar way. That is part of why they fail. Again, any shortcoming should be admitted up front so it isn't a big deal, but when its found in the middle of RFA, it becomes a big deal. I'm going to email someone about conoming and have them look here and do their homework. Dennis - 2¢ 17:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would be more than happy to accept, and trust your decision as to the conom. Thanks again for this review, Sam Walton (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm somewhat concerned over the Reddit post. Despite the fact that I'd only been active on Wikipedia for 7 months at the time, I can easily see it being something people oppose me on. It's a shame because I understand why it was a bad idea (on reflection), but it was entirely in good faith, as an outreach/SOFIXIT thing. I know, however, that it could have led to more off-wiki organisation and resulted in a less neutral article, and that I should have asked them to come to the article talk page to discuss changes. As it turns out I think it resulted in overall positive improvement of the article, but that's not the point. Sam Walton (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Then you say that at RFA in your first three questions somewhere. Most people aren't jerks, they understand mistakes. What they are concerned about is judgement. If you "get it" now, and see why it was a mistake, and not likely to repeat it, I think most will overlook it. I'm delaying a bit for other reasons right now, but I'm still thinking RFA is a good idea. You just have to be honest about your mistakes. They want honest admin, not perfect ones. Dennis - 2¢ 14:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Samwalton9, soon is going to be a good time. I'm still not sure if there will be a co nom, but if not, it isn't a big deal, or you could add one, I don't think it matter either way. RFA is about you, not us. My opinion is that now is a fine time to actually create the page and just not transclude it, then just copy over your answers. I will point back to this discussion in my nom, nothing to hide here, and if anyone opposes because you took the time to prepare, then they don't understand adminship. The fact that you haven't been bugging me about this left a good impression, actually. Dennis - 2¢ 23:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- No worries about the co nom, I get the impression that your word is well respected and as you say it's a judge of my suitability not how many people I managed to get to say nice things about me! I'm just about to call it a night and so will have a look at creating the page tomorrow. Hope you're alright by the way, saw that things haven't been great recently. Sam Walton (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing that time can't fix. I'm shooting for a day or two, if that is ok with you. No rush, but it is time. Dennis - 2¢ 00:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- RfA page started. Sam Walton (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Samwalton9, I've added my nom. As soon as Anna adds hers, you can transclude. It can be tricky (i screwed mine up) so read carefully. My final advice: You are going to get opposers, don't reply to most if any. Everyone has a right to oppose, even if you disagree with them. If there are factual errors, you can correct them but be careful to not bludgeon your own RFA, that is always a deal killer. I don't think that is your nature, so I'm not worried, but these things are still worth mentioning as I promise the next week will be the most stressful week you have ever experienced at Wikipedia. Anna went unopposed, you and I will both have had different experiences. When they ask questions, don't answer instantly. Think about it. The quality of the answer is more important than the speed. There is no obligation for real time answers. If you get back within 24 hours for each, that is reasonable. You aren't obligated to answer anything that is inappropriate, and if that does happen, they should simply be ignored. Do not, I repeat, do not sit in front of the screen and watch this in real time, it will be rollercoaster ride. Go read a book, fly a kite, etc. Avoid heated area editing and admin areas, simply because the added stress of RFA is not going to make you at your best, so you aren't helping anyone including yourself, there are other things you can do. Most important of all, stay calm, be yourself, be honest. You're a good guy, and if they get to see that in your answers, I'm confident they will be glad to give you the tools. Dennis - 2¢ 14:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and be sure to "accept" the noms ;) Dennis - 2¢ 14:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks you both for your advice and nominations! Lets see if I can not mess up the transcluding... Sam Walton (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's done correctly, could you give it a double check? Sam Walton (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks you both for your advice and nominations! Lets see if I can not mess up the transcluding... Sam Walton (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- RfA page started. Sam Walton (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing that time can't fix. I'm shooting for a day or two, if that is ok with you. No rush, but it is time. Dennis - 2¢ 00:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- No worries about the co nom, I get the impression that your word is well respected and as you say it's a judge of my suitability not how many people I managed to get to say nice things about me! I'm just about to call it a night and so will have a look at creating the page tomorrow. Hope you're alright by the way, saw that things haven't been great recently. Sam Walton (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Samwalton9, soon is going to be a good time. I'm still not sure if there will be a co nom, but if not, it isn't a big deal, or you could add one, I don't think it matter either way. RFA is about you, not us. My opinion is that now is a fine time to actually create the page and just not transclude it, then just copy over your answers. I will point back to this discussion in my nom, nothing to hide here, and if anyone opposes because you took the time to prepare, then they don't understand adminship. The fact that you haven't been bugging me about this left a good impression, actually. Dennis - 2¢ 23:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Then you say that at RFA in your first three questions somewhere. Most people aren't jerks, they understand mistakes. What they are concerned about is judgement. If you "get it" now, and see why it was a mistake, and not likely to repeat it, I think most will overlook it. I'm delaying a bit for other reasons right now, but I'm still thinking RFA is a good idea. You just have to be honest about your mistakes. They want honest admin, not perfect ones. Dennis - 2¢ 14:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Nom
Moving my nom, will edit there. Dennis - 2¢ 14:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Moving my co-nom, will edit there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)