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.
  • Administrators looking for a more formal venue, or editors wanting to request a review of an administrator's conduct, may wish to file a Requests for comment/User conduct.
  • 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 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.



Open review requests[edit]

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)

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

Scheduled to end 19:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC) or earlier.

It's been a full two years since my last administrator review. We're accountable to the community and this venue provides an opportunity for transparency and accountability. Please feel free to be critical. I'll try to respond openly and honestly. My responsive tone will match the reviewer's tone. Respect will be met with respect, snark with snark, dickishness with dickishness, and pleasantries with pleasantries. Thanks.--v/r - TP 19:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I've been spending a bit of time monitoring and contributing to AN/I. I've noticed that you tend to copy-paste your response into the edit summary, including the colons. But you make good points. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 20:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Yup, I sure do. Edits summaries are supposed to help us locate who did what edit. I find copy/pasting to be the best way to do this. If you ever needed to find a diff of when I said something, you can see the beginning of the edit in the edit summary. I post the colons for speed. Much easier to highlight from the beginning than navigate the mouse 6 characters over. Saves me seconds, I suppose, but I do like pennies.--v/r - TP 20:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, you were really doing a good job trying to help BDB, and I'd like to thank you for trying to be a bridge between us and them, despite the fanatics. Whatever happens from here is really up to them, not you or me. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 23:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I question whether TParis understands or believes that diversity is an asset to the Wikipedia community. He has demonstrated a frankly disturbing insensitivity to segments of it.

TParis' passivity throughout the Jews and Communism dispute and his request that Jehochman unblock Director and Producer was enormously insensitive to Wikipedia's Jewish editors and, for that matter, all its editors who find Antisemitism repellant. Let's not pretend that Director didn't spend 3 months defending an article that advanced a premise used by no less than Adolf Hitler to justify the Holocaust.

TParis' recent decision to congratulate Obiwankenobi on his "NPOV" was also seriously regrettable. Obi is not a monster, but the bulk of his edits pertain to pet issues and causes of Men's Rights Activists, an often virulently misogynistic movement that has feminist editors here blanking their user pages for fear of off-site harassment.

Being a good admin doesn't merely require keeping one's cool and (technically) playing by the rules. Admins are ultimately responsible for ensuring Wikipedia's ethical integrity and that editors from a range of backgrounds feel welcome here. TParis has been frighteningly indifferent to this aspect of his responsibilities. He needs to do much better as a leader and example to other editors.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In the Banc de Binary kerfuffle, TParis demonstrated poor judgment by defending editors whose behavior was so disruptive, including multiple sockpuppeting, that they were blocked and site-banned. He seemed more concerned by the BDB editors' ability to project their interests onto Wikipedia than he was by the problems they caused his fellow editors. Over time his view appeared to meld into the consensus that these editors were beyond hope, but he was slow to realize what was obvious to everyone else, and throughout seemed callous and insensitive to the problems that they were causing the project.

TParis is among the most unpleasant people I have encountered on Wikipedia. He is thin-skinned and abrasive, seems to nurse his grudges, and at times his behavior crosses the line into ad hominem gratuitous comments directed at other editors. This pointless remark on the COI talk page yesterday is all too typical. Administrators need to model good behavior, not push at the edges of bad behavior. I think that he needs to display some introspection and some real, sincere, desire to improve. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 14:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to say in my limited interactions with TParis, I've found him to be a reasonably honest interlocutor, in that he actually believes the things he says. These days I'm finding myself grateful just for that, which I suppose is pretty bleak. Agree with you about the insensitivity and indifference. It sounds like he's willing to work on it, though.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I certainly don't doubt his sincerity. My concern mainly lies in the areas of judgement and civility. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 15:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Serves me right to volunteer for this process while involved in several disputes - but please do forgive me if I take your advice with a grain of salt. You've failed to see beyond your own viewpoint and put your hat in the ring with a radical opponent to COI editing who has made changes to a guideline w/o consensus. I've asked you and the other two to obey policy and the reaction to that was "what policy", "where", "who says" ect. That is classic WP:IDHT behavior and is disruptive. CorporateM made a very honest and personal expression of his own experience and instead of addressing it, the user that diff is in response to choose to act as if CorporateM made an outlandish claim - instead of the quite real remark from personal experience which the other user lacks entirely (for better or worse). It doesn't get more IDHT than that when a user chooses to ignore an argument altogether instead of addressing it. The community has begun to intercede and you three are now a minority on that talk page. Please do not vent that frustration out on me. I warned you early who you were getting involved with. This is not to be nasty, this is a effort to get you to open your eyes. As far as BDB goes, you got a bunch of involved editors to !vote to have them banned - an action not supported by WP:CBAN which requires uninvolved editors. I'm most concerned with the way Wikipedians acted during that incident, including houding and harassment by radical opponents of COI editing, and you continue to not take any responsibility for your role to play. You paved the path for them and insisted they walk down it right to a site ban. I guarantee BDB is still around and are now operating in secret. Good job, we'll never know what edits they perform now. You're a regular genius. @Atlantictire: Honesty is one of my best qualities. I admit I'm not always right, but I honestly believe I am right about what I say when I'm saying it.--v/r - TP 17:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm really surprised that you would defend the comment to which I linked. I assumed you were engaged in some kind of hyperbole, and weren't seriously suggesting that Coretheapple was being disruptive when he said "I'm not clear on why there is an outing concern here." (Frankly I'm not clear myself.) To cite that as an example of "I didn't hear that" is nothing less than bizarre. It's also ironic, because IDHT is part of the policy on disruption and what you were doing was disrupting the conversation in pursuit of your personal grudge against Coretheapple. No, I am not surprised that you are taking my comments with a grain of salt, because that is in keeping with the behavior pattern I have observed, and it is prevalent in the preceding discussion as well. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 17:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
If you insist that "As a one-person company, I cannot disclose my employer without outing myself and risking harassment" isn't clear on how the user would be outing themselves, then you as well are displaying an WP:IDHT behavior. There is nothing at all ambiguous about this. He is a 1 person company. Identifying his employer very clearly identifies himself. That you continue to insist not to understand makes me really question what you're doing at this review. I'm asking for honest feedback - this isn't open season to grind axes and continue an argument that clearly belongs at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict of interest.--v/r - TP 19:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't interpret it that way. I interpreted it as "as a self-employed person I can't disclose my client," but I see your point. You're right, a self-employed person would be disclosing his own identity if he disclosed "his employer." As a self-employed person myself, I interpreted "employer" to mean "client." Perhaps Core had the same point of confusion. I hope you see that I'm right when I say that your temperament is simply not what one comes to expect from an administrator. Rather than assume good faith, and providing an explanation, you immediately assumed bad faith and went on the offensive. This is typical of how you operate, and I think that you would benefit greatly from looking closely in the mirror sometime. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, my temperment in the COI discussion has not been ideal and it isn't representative of my usual behavior. In fact, Atlantictire above describes me as indifferent and disinterested which is my normal everyday self. I'm upset because I feel there is a lot of misunderstandings when it comes to COIs, a lot of exaggerations, and there are many 'champions' who think they are saving Wikipedia when in reality they don't fully comprehend what they are fighting. That's why I get upset. I don't support paid advocacy, I don't support using the encyclopedia to gain money or fame. This is a free-culture project that I and many many thousands of others have volunteered hours towards. I'd never support anything that compromises the integrity of the project. But I see underground editing as the bigger threat than disclosed editing and I fear many of the tactics we're using encourage underground editing rather than combat it. Rules do not solve problems - cultures and how we address issues solve problems.--v/r - TP 19:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that you have a theoretical framework on COI editing to which you adhere strongly, whereas people like me are less concerned with theory and more with practicality. At BDB, for instance, there was a serious problem with disruption that is now gone. No, to respond to your earlier ocmment, I did not "get" anyone to ban those editors. That kind of battleground comment will get you nowhere. There was a discussion at AN/I and it overwhelmingly favored a site ban. Since then the disruption has stopped on the page. There has been no "secret army" of BDB socks and if there was, they would be visible. What you don't seem to recognize is that there already was a secret army of BDB socks, dozens of them. That is one of the principal reasons they were banned.
I view COI as a disruptive influence, much like any other form of disruption. I don't view it as a moral crusade as you seem to feel it does when you guess at the motives of people who disagree with you. When the disruption is eliminated, the volunteer editors can get down to business. My problem with your approach of "facilitating" COI editing is that it perpetuates a disruptive influence. But I am happy with whatever the community decides in a fair process. This is really your passion, not mine. Your comments to the contrary indicate you are not reading the discussion very carefully. What raises my hackles is incivility, and I was an early volunteer at WP:WQA as soon as I learned of its existence.
I am glad that you realize that your temperament in the COI page discussion has not been for the best. I think that application of WP:AGF would A) lower the temperature there and B) Improve your ability to influence the discussion. I'm sure you can see how counterproductive it is to come across as a hothead with a personal agenda. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 20:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The discussion at ANI had 7 editors supportive of a site ban. You[1], Fut Pref[2], and Coretheapple[3] were all involved. Per WP:CBAN, "f an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute" (emphasis mine). That means 5 uninvolved editors: Robert McClenon, Origamite, John Nagle, Hasteur, and G S Palmer supported a site ban. There has never been a site ban discussion on Wikipedia with less support. The only reason I haven't argued this case further is because BDB in incapable of receiving help w/o screwing it up and I don't have time to waste on a cause that is going to make my work harder. I'm choosing my battles - I'll pick the fight when there is a group that is better suited toward following policy. Otherwise, I'm not sure sure your site ban would've been successful.--v/r - TP 21:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak for the other two you mention, but since I never actually edited the article, but only became involved when I saw it at ANI early last month (one of the two or three discussions that led to the site banning), I'm not sure I'd count as involved. Maybe I was; I just don't know enough about the process. The only really "involved" editor apart from the BDB crew was an SPA who didn't participate. But anyway, the closing administrator was convinced, and there really was no one arguing with any real enthusiasm against banning. In fact, as I recall from the flow of the discussion, you yourself grew disgusted with BDB and ultimately gave up on them. In fact, you commented something to the effect that your proposal was the only thing preventing them from being indeffed. I remember feeling at the time that your disillusionment was crucial in the banning. Additionally, what you need to consider is that in the midst of that Okteriel, a very active and disruptive BDB editor, was blocked as a sockpuppet. That didn't help. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 22:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, I'm not going to waste my time on people who can't help themselves. I've been successful at saving editors from indefs in the past whose real crime was not realizing what the actual dispute was. I had hoped to do the same, but when I am trying to explain BDB's point of view and BDB comes out and directly contradicts what I'm trying to get across to everyone - well there is no point. I don't have the level of patience and good faith that Dennis Brown does but I think I've done a fairly decent job of sticking my neck out to try to recover disputes that went way off. I wrote WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME and I think we need less knee-jerk bans and more communication on this project. Also, I don't see a sock block on either BDBJack or BDBIsreal. There was a sock block on BDBJack but it was overturned with insufficient evidence ([4]).--v/r - TP 22:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to put the record straight, I wonder where you got the idea from that I had been "involved" with the BDB debacle before that ban discussion? I most definitely wasn't. Fut.Perf. 13:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I looked around and could not find a definition of what "involved in the underlying dispute" means. What definition are you relying on, TParis? Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 15:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Figureofnine provides no diffs and lays it on too thick, making me think this is personal not professional. I've been watching TParis pretty closely from the beginning. About the only thing we have in common is our love for Star Trek and our geographical location; other than that, we are pretty different, but I don't hold it against him. :) Nevertheless, I think most of the issues I've seen with TParis have to do with growing pains. He's changed a lot over the years, and I have to say, I'm impressed. As he's gained more experience, I've seen him make better decisions and open himself up to new things and possibilities. In the beginning, I used to criticize him fairly harshly for his positions, but I think he's changed a great deal with maturity. As far as I can tell, whatever the differences, Wikipedia is lucky to have him as an administrator. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't think it was necessary to provide diffs, since the purpose is not to appeal to a third party but to provide direct feedback. I thought that our discussion had concluded, but if TParis wants diffs, I will provide them. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I've probably disagreed with him on a few occasions recently but those were in cases where the questions were clearly far from cut and dried and reasonable disagreements were possible. I have not to my memory seen anything in my recent contacts with him which would make me question his ability to use the admin tools properly. If people think he is disqualified because at times his conduct is less than perfect I suggest they try to build a time machine and get Spock to come back with them. Otherwise I salute him for taking the extraordinary step of initiating regular voluntary review. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  • TParis seems a strong administrator. Does that mean "brash" to some? He is willing to act decisively, and that is a good thing. Possibly, he errs on the side of allowing his opinion to influence administrative actions, or conduct respresenting an administrator, but not terribly so. TParis deserves a lot of kudos for self declaring his identity, and his POVs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I applaud TParis' receptiveness to getting feedback. My impression of TParis is that he is dedicated to keeping the project running smoothly and usually willing to discuss issues of disagreement. Where I believe he shows strength is in formally closing discussions and assessing consensus. He sometimes comes across as over confident and occasionally condescending, which can tend to make others defensive and non-receptive to his advice, thus escalating conflicts. I do have some serious concerns about his understanding of certain policies. WP:EW and WP:BLP are recent examples that come to mind. My sense is that he tends to color his interpretation of some policies with what I would loosely describe as "tribal knowledge"; information that has been so often repeated that it is eventually considered by some as de facto policy. There are also some temperament issues, as mentioned by other editors. - MrX 17:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Great guy, would make admin again. 10/10. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 13:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Acts cool, is cool. When I see his name (... er ... initials) signing a post on WP:ANI, I expect to read an evenhanded, and, yes, confident, response. He's very active, so the few instances of losing his cool are very far between, and he commits to work on those. Support as administrator, would support for ArbCom. --GRuban (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it likely TParis and I are at opposite poles when it comes to things like politics and religion, yet I have a high degree of trust in his upfront honesty, decency, ability to mediate fairly on controversial or difficult issues, and general willingness to see things through when his mouth runs him into difficulties. If we had more admins like this we wouldn't have so many problems with the crazed way the admin system is structured. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

My first (and really, only) interaction with TP, was not a pleasant one, partially stemming from a misunderstanding on my part. But, other than that time, I find myself disagreeing with him (Not as in arguing type of disagreeing, but simply not agreeing), but he makes sense. He is reacting well to criticism here. A bit snappy, but a good admin. Keep it up. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi TParis. It might be helpful if you could put up a short paragraph giving some indication of the broad reasons, and one or two specific incidents which prompted you to go for this review. Besides other things, it might be useful to get the focus on what is already on your mind.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Admin statistics
Action Count
Edits 58885
Edits+Deleted 60921
Pages deleted 2073
Pages restored 17
Pages protected 344
Pages unprotected 6
Protections modified 43
Users blocked 1335
Users reblocked 40
Users unblocked 12
User rights modified 96
Users created 4

Scheduled to end 16:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC) or earlier. It's been six months since the community decided I was fit to be an administrator. There have been a few bumps in the road, and I've learned a lot from them. Some administrative areas weren't as rewarding to work in as I thought they'd be (namely WP:ANEW), other areas I didn't think I would work in I've turned out to be a regular (such as WP:SPI). All in all I'm fairly pleased with where I am, but I am very interested to hear the community's opinion on that.

Please understand this is a request for review of my administrative actions and conduct in general. If you have an unresolved issue with me or something I did, please use my talk page so that we can discuss it there. I am aware that the admin review is bound to attract some negative feedback, but so long as it's constructive I'd love to hear it. I do reserve the right to remove any material I deem inappropriate. I plan to close this review within a few month's time. Thanks to all for their input. — MusikAnimal talk 16:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • One of the few admin names I instantly recognise and see regularly while editing. From what I've seen doing a good job at both directly tackling vandals and doing admin tasks. Keep up the good work. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Good work on your reversion of vandals, my friend; I see you've made some waves around here with that. You also look like you have a good track record of deletions, blocks, and protections (i.e. admin stuff).
    This is optional, but I think you could focus a bit more on article creation, and improvements like DYKs, GAs, and FAs. You have 8 GAs already, which is fine, but you don't seem to have any DYKs except for those that are also GAs, according to your user page. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Not that it matters, but I achieved a DYK with 32 Old Slip before it being promoted to good article status (usually it is the other way around, as articles are eligible for DYK when recently promoted). You are correct, though, that my article work is quite low. Unfortunately I have but about one or two days a week to devote time to content creation and associated research. On the other hand my usual anti-vandal work does not require undivided attention, and I am able to quickly assess situations and take administrative action. While I don't think content work is critical to being an adept admin, it is still valued feedback that I appreciate you taking the time to share. — MusikAnimal talk 01:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You're doing fine with the tools so far. For some reason I always lighten up when I see your username in the page history. Keep up the good work - you're doing a massive favor for the project! --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 12:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, I noticed that you reverted the cultural marxism page to an edit from earlier today which is very biased. On Wikipedia we like to keep articles neutral, especially ones dealing with sensitive social issues. So please keep the page how it was before today's nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyg128 (talkcontribs)
    This does concern an administrative action I took so I will leave it here in my review, although you made the same inquiry on my talk page. I know very little about marxism but I know an edit war when I see one, which was the case at Cultural Marxism and Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. Something had to be done to stop disruption, so I fully protected both articles and encouraged discussion, which seems to be going well. I would usually revert to the state prior to the edit war, but the edit war seemed to go quite a ways back in history. I unfortunately don't have the time to carefully read through the sizeable article and revisions to find the "right" version, especially when I know so little about the subject. Frankly as the protecting admin I don't feel obligated to either, at least when it is not obvious. Through discussion you and other involved editors can together determine what's best for the article(s), and that can be implemented accordingly either through edit request or after the protection expires. Given the circumstances I stand by administrative decision. — MusikAnimal talk 01:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No concerns with your use of tools or editing in general, keep up the good work! Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • From my personal experience, I've found MusikAnimal's actions on blocking editors very lenient and constructive. I think he does decent job in resolving conflicts and participates in creating a healthy community.--Retrohead (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Honestly - MusikAnimal is a role model for anyone wanting to be an admin, He's polite, calm, civil, lenient and someone's who's a great asset to this place, - I would go as far to say he's one of the best admins here!, No concerns at all, Keep up the great work! :) –Davey2010(talk) 01:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Davey said it all. MA, since your promotion, you've become one of the best administrators IMO. Like Davey said, you seem calm, polite, civil, and lenient. No complaints. :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Friendly, polite, active and very helpful. Performing admin tasks is a thankless job and even in the midst of all the craziness, MA does a spectacular job defending the wiki with his mop and his signature calm demeanour. Thank you. - NQ (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I cast the seventh !vote in support of your RFA, where I commented "Should make a great administrator". You have not disappointed. You do diligent and conscientious work and have a good demeanor. You are constructive in anti-vandalism work. I encourage you not to become overwhelmed or stressed out. If that means you reduce your content contribution, so be it. That seems to occur with many administrators. A good, diligent administrator is very valuable to the project. Content contributions may provide some diversion, are of great importance, and keep in touch with the work you are administering. But I suggest not carrying that to the point of becoming a burden. Donner60 (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No issues.You are handling adminship very well.--Param Mudgal talk? 12:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)