User:Miranda/Wikipedia:Editor review/Miranda

Miranda
Miranda Editor since Jan. 2007. Previous editor review is located here. Internal evaluation is located here.  Mi r a n da  05:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * Hello. I think you aren't a good editor, and you are too pushy with your edits. If I were to put a grade in this review I would give you a F minus. Have a good day. Wwefan980 21:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: The user is blocked for two weeks for incivility. M. (er) 05:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were an admin the first time I hear of you! I'd really like to nominate you for adminship if that's what you'd like.  Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake)  23:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you should go straight to RFA instead. I watch it. @pple complain 08:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Miranda...I'm not really in the mood for a full review now (sorry), but I just wanted to say that before you run for RfA, it'd be a good idea to make sure you really know what an admin can and can't do. My precedent is your comments here.  I'm no admimn myself, but I'm fairly certain that what I've said there in relation to admin capabilities is correct.  Just a thought, good luck :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I made the comments on the RFA relevant to his potential usage of the tools, not the tools themselves. I know what the tools do, but the community must have faith in a candidate to make proper use of the tools must be considered in all administrator candidates. M. (er) 09:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I just wanted to say that I've always thought that you were an admin, and now I think that you definitely have a chance. - Lemonflash (O_o)  23:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Miranda, for my 2cents, you have been working comfortably as an admin for some time, in both dispute resolution and task management. I hope that you will "move on" to the "next step" of adminship.-  Ro  Bo  Tam  ice 14:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Miranda, I got here by your removal of Nick's comment that popped on my watchlist. I must admit that I am puzzled: what's the point of asking an editor review if you remove the only critic there is on the page? -- lucasbfr talk 10:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Me and Nick sorted this out privately. My mistake in removing his *ahem* ramble. Miranda  00:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to sockpuppetry – Gurch 10:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Overly long ramble by Nick
Miranda has been asking me to take part in her editor review for quite some considerable period of time. I can see where people are coming from when they state Miranda should consider an RfA, sadly, I can see problems with Miranda if she were to become an administrator. She has a history of getting into disputes with disruptive users and lacks any capability to disengage with the problem, rather, she can become part of the problem. This raises uncomfortable questions regarding potential conflicts of interest when blocking users. She can be quite bitey and the Foundation has received a complaint from a new user who suffered abuse on IRC at the hands of Miranda, which subsequently caused her to be removed from several IRC channels. I think this is quite widely known by channel operators and administrators here. She also has a tendency to indulge in petty editing wars with other users and has the tendency to confuse small and petty editing wars with other users as something far more sinister. She's currently engaged in some tit for tat conflict with the administrator User:AGK, which, to be fair, isn't mainly Miranda's fault, but there's a lack of willingness to ask AGK to cease, or to disengage through the "revert and ignore" principle. She has a habit to become a tad obsessed with subjects and to request action from administrators which isn't consistent with policies of the project, mainly relating to the articles she edits, and I'm a little concerned she might block or protect in relation to the articles she's editing, which although a sensible path to take, presents conflict of interest problems and ultimately can cause considerable additional trouble.

There's also question of her behaviour on IRC, which, to be fair, can be annoying for much of the time, but which is little more than a very annoying distraction when you're trying to edit or to program. Finally, there's the continual leaving, threatning to leave and eternal wikibreaks Miranda appears to be doing, which raises questions as to how she will respond to an RfA failure.

I do think, if Miranda can steer away from COI issues in which she's firmly involved, if she can resist the temptation to come down too heavily on new users, and stops being as annoying as she is on IRC, I think she would make a fine administrator not afraid to put in the hours and do vast amounts of hardwork.

In light of the concerns, I would support contingent on Miranda placing herself open to recall and setting a reasonable criteria for her recall.

Nick 20:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * Hi there. A useful piece of experience for a RfA is having experience of deletion discussions. What about adding one of the categories of discussions that interest you to your watchlist? You can find them at Articles_for_deletion. All the best Tim Vickers 21:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I take part in MFD discussions, but I will take part of AFD discussions in order to see how consensus is determined. M. (er) 23:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean you haven't figured out how consensus is determined yet? It's easy, an administrator glances at the votes, then if they agree with the majority they do whatever they decided, and if they don't agree they close it as No Consensus – Gurch 10:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.