User:Dennis Brown/RfA/Elektrik Shoos

Review of Elektrik Shoos

This is an editor review for admin. Please do not modify it.

Elektrik Shoos (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Stats

• First edit: May 03, 2010
• Total SUL edits: 16,586
• Article contribs: 26.63%
• Project space: 11.65%
• User rights: reviewer, rollbacker
• Summaries: 100%
• 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.

CSD

Looks fine. I suggest adding a summary for each blue link briefly explaining why it is blue, ie: Now a redirect or similar

PROD

Same as CSD, looks fine, add summary

AFD

Looks fine, percentages are ok, slightly on the delete side but nothing far outside the actual outcomes there. You could use more experience at AFD, in particular saving some articles, however.

NAC AFD

I only saw three, and they are the exact type they should be, procedural. I prefer to avoid NAC closures outside of procedureal closes, as they will just come back to haunt you.

Copyright

Sanctions (via [1])

Monthly contribs

Problems with consistency. Of course, real life comes first, but voters at RfA strongly favor admin candidates that have the majority of months with at least 400 edits or so.

Admin area experience

Articles created

Just seven. Low number of articles created is particularly problematic considering the low article contrib ratio. This will likely be a point for opposing votes in combination.

User talk

Automated edits

42.49% are automated, which is high. 25% or lower is better, but it does depend on the areas you work. AIV workers have more automated edits, but editors who work only AIV often struggle at RfA as there isn't a perceived shortage of admin there. To compare, mine is 11% and I have to use the tools a lot as an admin, so that really is high.

Talk archive

You archive, which is expected.

Misc.

Summaries, userboxes, signature seem fine.

Personal

Final

I haven't dug really deep here because there are some issues that I think would have to be addressed, putting you 6 months out regardless. Your article contribs are really low, and when combined with the on/off nature of your contribs, that would be a recipe for a short RfA. It isn't about quality (I haven't ever seen any problem with any of your contribs from casual observation) it is about consistency. Some candidates can get away with lower contrib ratios if they bring something else to the table that offsets it, such as a few years of consistent participation, unique skills, etc. I had 40% contribs, which some felt was too low, but I had a long history of work within AfD (over 1500 and excellent ratios) and a lot of mediation experience, but it wasn't an easy RfA.

If you want to seek the bit, I suggest taking the next 6 months and focusing on article development, as to demonstrate you fully understand content issues. Preferably without AWB, and instead on real content. Sourcing articles (gnoming) is also fine, which is something needed and lots of us do. Perhaps helping at WP:DRN as well, which is an admin like area that is often understaffed and requires both content understanding and mediation skills. Again, from what I've seen, you seem pretty level headed and all. After 6 months, I can do a deeper investigation if the consistency and ratios are better. You can use the links in the RfA box on this page, which I think are updated around once a day, to track ratios. Normally, I don't do reviews for editors with less than 35% article contribs, but wanted to at least provide enough of a look and research to give you some direction on how to get there if you are interested in seeking the admin bit.