User:Dennis Brown/RfA/Go Phightins!

Review of Go Phightins!
This is an editor review for admin. Please do not modify it.

Stats

 * First edit: Feb 2011, effectively 8/12
 * Total SUL edits: 6674
 * Article contribs: 34%
 * Project space: 14%
 * User rights: reviewer, rollbacker
 * Summaries: 95%+
 * 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
 * Looks good, I see you now add explanations for the blue links which is good


 * PROD
 * Look ok, need to go back and look at previous PRODs that are blue links, like Cherussery Ahmed Kutty Musliyar. The article creator removed the BLP PROD tag, yet it is still unsourced.  Adding explanations for blue links is helpful here as well. Even "Sources were added" or "was sent to AFD, was kept", etc.


 * AFD
 * Over 200, looks fine, your ratio of keep to delete votes is consistent with outcomes, overall you are with consensus most of the time. Improving that ratio will come with time but is adequate even now.


 * NAC AFD
 * I don't recommend trying to do a bunch of these. They can hurt you more than help you, and you don't really learn much.  The one withdrawal you did was proper.


 * Copyright
 * Didn't find much, you should just take the time to become familiar. This is a very important part of being an admin here.


 * Sanctions (via )
 * None.


 * Monthly contribs
 * You only have 3 or 4 consistent months of contribs. You need at least 12 of the last 18.


 * Admin area experience
 * Consider spending an hour or two at RfPP. Armbrust non-admin clerks there and can serve as an example.  This is a lower drama area. Be very careful to not spend too much time at ANI and getting caught up in the drama.  I worked ANI heavily, which put off some people even while I did it calmly.  Most RfA candidates who are seen at ANI heavily are looked on with less favor.  I don't see a problem, just providing info that ANI isn't a good place to hang out.  Offering objective help at DRN is an excellent way to demonstrate an ability to mediate.  Hanging out too much at RfA can also work against you.  Voting is fine, but be careful to not a regular fixture in discussions there, as some will see that in a negative light.


 * Articles created
 * 17 which is a good start. I suggest working on those articles to get most or all of the template removed before you do an RfA.  I see you focus mainly on football, which is fine.  Most look pretty good.  Having 50 by the time you RfA would be a significant advantage.  Getting a few DYK and at least one GA or FA is also helpful.  I didn't, and paid for it at RfA.


 * User talk
 * Fairly high for a non-admin, which I'm guessing is from vandal fighting. While templating user's talk pages is convenient, you do us all a favor if you take some extra time, see if they are a new user, and use a hand written comment.  This is particularly true where it is obvious the edit may be misguided but not traditional vandalism.  Basically, you have to slow down enough to determine if Wikipedia is better served by educating the editor, or warning them.  Most users will just template, but admin are expected to discriminate a bit more and if adminship is your goal, learning to do this will benefit you.  This is inline with our goals at WP:WER as well, helping editors that have a rough start.  And follow up to see if there is a reply.  It will show you know how to work with users, assume good faith, and are trying to bring more editors into the community.  Of course, if their edits are obvious vandalism, this is less effective, but a "come on, why don't you instead join us building the encyclopedia" note can sometimes be effective as well.  It will mean slower work and less contribs, but we are after quality, not quantitity.  You have enough contribs that losing a couple hundred a month by takinhg your time with new users isn't going to hurt you.


 * Automated edits
 * Well over 30%, which is rather high. Vandal fighting is my guess.


 * Talk archive
 * Setup properly. No problem

Signature is ok, summaries are ok, but I worry about the user page just a little. Too much "flair" in the way of userboxes can come across as immature if you aren't careful. I don't see any particular problem, just be aware that some judge you by this.
 * Misc.

Final
The good: Lots of contribs considering the time, learning a lot, do many good things, have pretty good clue and unquestionably good motives. You generally communicate well and I haven't seen you go off the deep end, so you seem to deal with stress acceptably.

The bad: Not too much. Obviously, you don't have enough experience to pass RfA yet, you need the 12 months of experience before I would want to risk an RfA. Now the blunt part...be careful to not look too eager. Nothing kills an RfA like a wikicareer of looking eager to be an admin. This is a fine line to walk, I understand. Jumping in late, or making comments that accidentally cause drama can hurt you. You have to pick and choose when to offer a comment, and do so only when you are adding something new or helpful, and with the goal of helping the community see a solution. You will stumble along the way, this is expected, we all did, and still do from time to time, so don't take this too hard.

The advice: The best thing to do is put the idea of adminship on hold, clear it from your head, and put your focus on doing the best you can do on making Wikipedia a better place. Then around next July, think about it for a September run. If you think about adminship too much, it will show in your work. I do think you have the right skills and frame of mind to make a good admin, but you need another 9-12 months of experience and track record. Slow down a bit and focus on the quality of the work. Don't concern yourself about the number of contribs, that won't matter at RfA by the time you are ready. You seem to have a "problem solver" mentality, which is good for an admin. Now hone that craft by solving few problems, but solving them better.

Don't allow yourself to be reactive. If someone misunderstands, allow them enough time to come around, or for others to agree with you. You aren't particularly impatient, but I think learning to be a bit more patient and slower to reply will enhance your current skills and help you come across with more authority and more "clue" in your words.

Keep your article contribs at least at 35% of your contribs total. You can see the numbers in the RfA box above. This is important and you are already on the cusp. It drops once you get the bit, but voters prefer 50%, but support drops off when it gets below 35%.

I do think you are working in the right direction, making some minor mistakes, but that is part of the learning process. Being bold means making mistakes sometimes, but being timid makes for poor admin, so it takes experience to find the right center. As I said, normally I won't do this kind of review for someone with only a few months of contribs behind them. I did the review because I think highly of you and think you have great potential to help us eventually as an admin, and know you are making a significant difference even now. Just keep doing what you are doing, refining it along the way, and when you are ready, I will be happy to review again and nominate you at at that time.