Wikipedia:Administrator review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Request an administrator review
Guidelines:
Shortcuts:
  • Administrator review is an informal review that allows administrators (as well as bureaucrats, oversighters, and checkusers) to have their administrative actions and/or editorial conduct evaluated by community peers, who will provide constructive feedback.
  • Please note that this page is intended to review administrative actions and conduct in general. If there is an unresolved issue you would like to discuss with an administrator, it is best to raise the issue on their talk page or at another venue.
  • Off-topic content or simply personal attacks may be removed, however, it is important to remember that the review process may produce comments that the editor being reviewed may not like or personally agree with, and the individual being reviewed should make every attempt to use this collaborative process to communicate with others. Editors should not refactor comments they dislike. These should either be simply removed or discussed.
  • Reviews may be closed at any time. Reviews still open after 12 months will be archived. Please use {{subst:archive top}} and {{subst:archive bottom}}, respectively, on the review page, and remove the entry from the page when closing.
Instructions on creating an administrator review page:
  1. Create a subpage using the box below, replacing USERNAME with your username. Please make sure there is no space after your username, as this makes it hard for reviewers to reach your request.
  2. You can use {{Administrator review}} to advertise this review request on your userpage. This may significantly increase the amount of useful feedback you receive, as ADREV is not very well advertised, but also expect more complaints about your actions from editors with whom you interact.
Request form
Replace USERNAME with your username.

(Add a space followed by the number of the review if previous exist)



Open review requests[edit]

TomStar81 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)[edit]

Scheduled to end 08:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC) or earlier.

Well I promised myself I'd do at least one crazy thing this year and this seemed like as good an idea as any, so here I am. If anyone wants to tear into me or my actions, or compliment me on my actions, or recommend I spit and polish some of my actions, or assign me some homework I'll listen to you ideas, suggestions, criticisms, and recommendations. If there are any other positions you'd think I'd be good for here I'd be open to hearing about that too - I've been a milhist coordinator and an admin for a number years, both a which I think I've been good at, so I'm open to suggestions there as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Review by Kudpung

Hi Tom. Are you planning a come back and is that the reason for calling for reviews? I saw you made two RfA within 5 days of each other (with a reasonably acceptable explanation) but then a year later still only barely scraped through. You don't appear to have done much more than uncontroversial backroom tasks, but that's not a criticism - every little helps. Having voted on around 52 RfA, mostly in 2008 & 2009 and mostly 'support' ' including supporting many of those who were clearly not suitable and failed, your comments here do not demonstrate that you have taken on board our current need to make RfA a more inviting place to encourage candidates of the right calibre to come forward to fill the exponential attrition, nor that you are able to differentiate between consensus, policy, and perfectly legitimate opinion. Perhaps you could bear that in mind if ever you decide to participate on RfA again. Your work at MilHist was exemplary. I'm sure they miss you there. Have a good year. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I never really left, its just my life priorities got rearranged and between that and my increasing distaste for what I perceive to be an ever increasing amount of policy and guideline material I've kind of distanced my self from Wikipedia somewhat. As for my comments on the RFA, they were comments, and my questions were questions, and I opined only under the flag of neutrality. If this upsets people I shall endevour to refrain from participation as much as possible to help keep the peace and reduce the drama. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Review by Nick-D

Tom, all of your admin actions I've seen over the years have been sensible. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Mkdw (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)[edit]

Scheduled to end 17:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC) or earlier.

It has been one year since my RfA and the community granted me some additional tools in my puttering around Wikipedia. It has been a very busy and exciting year for me personally which unfortunately took its toll on my time here on Wikipedia. As such it's taken me awhile to find my pace, or lack there of, and I am more or less at the understanding that my time here will come in waves as my availability comes and goes. That said, any feedback would be welcome for the bits of time I have spent thus far. Mkdwtalk 17:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Glad to see you're doing some protections - WP:RFPP is often a little backlogged. The most recent ones from April looked in order and align with what I'd have done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't find fault with what you've done so far, but what's up with testing the rights permission? You've given rights to an individual for the reason of (testing) and it's a bit concerning to see that. What's the context behind that? Tutelary (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
ThisIsaTest is one of a few dozen account set up by the community specifically for testing. This account in particular is part of the New Admin School. A quick look on the user page displays a notice that states the "purpose is for test by administrators in applying blocks". It's also tagged with various NAS links and markings. Additionally you can look at the user logs which show a few hundred tests by other sysops. In general, all of my initial sysop actions are part of this New Admin School which should be similar to other admins who have gone through the same process when you have review their actions. Hope this clarifies the typical pattern in actions most admins are expected to go through when they first are granted the tools. Mkdwtalk 00:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Another secret bit that comes with experience. Given the context of the answer, I think you're doing pretty well with your administrator tools. Though I will recommend (as I'd recommend any admin) to take a look at the category administrative backlog.(Only if you have some extra time to go through it. A backlog is preferred to hasty acts, imho.) Tutelary (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've had a look at a variety of Mkdw's administrative actions, specifically in the area of revision deletion and page protection and I'm generally happy with their judgement. The revision deletions (which aren't available to non-admins) show that they have a good nose for BLP and how to handle vandalism. During Mkdw's RfA I !voted support—I'm happy with their mop-wielding. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Glad I supported your RfA. Keep up the good work. -- œ 07:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)