Wikipedia:Administrator review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Request an administrator review
  • 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)

Instructions for reviewers
Reviewers and reviewees should adhere to Wikipedia's behavioral policies at all times.
When reviewing, consider these points
  • User conduct – informative edit summaries, polite attitude toward others, follows procedures as outlined in relevant policies, etc.
  • Communication – informative comments on talk pages, explanation of actions if asked, detailed responses, etc.
  • Administrative logs – consider reviewing the editor's administrative logs or actions in administrative areas such as WP:ANI or WP:AIV (if available)
Advice for leaving feedback
  • Be open, honest, and straight forward. Say what you think but keep in mind that this process is about constructive feedback.
  • Be specific. Provide support for your statements in the forms of links and diffs especially when pointing out concerns.
  • Feel free to leave positive comments and feedback for areas of improvement.
  • Watch the page, and be willing to discuss your feedback with the admin, preferably in a timely manner.

A list of all Administrator Reviews can be found here. Alternatively, use the search box below to find specific comments or Administrator Reviews.

Open review requests[edit]

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

Scheduled to end 11:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC) or earlier.

I am running in this year's Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election, and I feel that my conduct as an administrator (which I have been for the last six years), but more importantly as an editor and as a Wikimedian, merits review by the wider Wikimedia community. I personally feel that the administrator review process will help bring more accountability to the election, ensuring that the Wikimedia community elects someone to the Board of Trustees who they know can stand the scrutiny of the microscope, and I welcome any and all feedback that would be offered to me by the community. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Sky Harbor Sorry to see that your candidacy did not result in a placement on the Board of Trustees. According to your edit analysis, you have a fairly light presence on the English Wikipedia with very few edits outside of the article space. In terms of administrative actions, only about a dozen or so deletions per year, mostly inside your own user space or technical deletions to make way for a new page. In reviewing your block/unblock log, there are only two entries. A single block of an IP in 2012, and then an unlock of an editor in March 2015. The unblock request appeared both sincere and met all the criteria recommended for an unblock request. You checked with the blocking administrator and there was a consensus for an unblock. I would have made the same decision. I see recently you created a number of accounts for a Wikipedia Education Program seminar. Other than that, not seeing any actions in terms of page protections, user rights, revdel, and so forth. Overall I would say that your administrative actions have been few and far between in relation to the time you've spent on Wikipedia, but I see no signs of anything that would be a cause for concern. All the best, Mkdwtalk 21:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Scheduled to end 23:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC) or earlier.

It's been six months (and change) since my RFA and I've done well over 400 admin actions (not counting unlogged ones like declining reports, etc., which would probably push the total above 500 or even 600). I know that's not very many, but content writing is a lot more enjoyable. I haven't seen any angry complaints on my talk page about my admin work, so I'm assuming I haven't pissed to many people off, but I'm submitting this review just to be safe. Tell me what you think... --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • "I haven't seen any angry complaints on my talk page about my admin work", well, one reason for that is because you do far more content creation than admin work. Not a bad thing though. sst✈discuss 09:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Invariably it's the admins who are least in need of an admin review that request it, and the ones most in need of it who don't. This one is another case in point. That aside, A+. LavaBaron (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)