User:Dennis Brown/RfA/LuK3

Review of LuK3

This is an editor review for admin. Please do not modify it. I've asked another admin to help in reviewing as well.

LuK3 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Stats

• First edit: June 2008 (effectively June 2011)
• Total SUL edits: 17,908
• Article contribs: 36%+
• Project space: 9%
• User rights:reviewer, rollbacker
• Summaries: about 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. Some areas may be intentionally blank if there is nothing to add about that area.

CSD

Excellent

PROD

Not much, no problems

AFD

Moderate experience but almost always with consensus.

NAC AFD

Only the one, a smart one.

Copyright

Haven't seen, thus asking the question below.

Sanctions (via [1])

Squeeky clean

Monthly contribs

Well over a year of solid contribs

Admin area experience

Plenty.

Articles created

8, one of your weak areas. I strongly suggest going in and fixing 2012 Oklahoma wildfires before RfA, so it doesn't need the tags. A few of the others actually look like pretty good articles, showing you do know how to edit.

User talk

Lots of templates, will go check for hand written

Automated edits

over 50% which some may have an issue with, but it is common for vandal fighters and patrollers.

Talk archive

Long history of archiving, excellent

Misc.

No issues.

Personal notes

Started in 06-08, but realistically 17 months ago. Helped build two GAs and almost 18k edits. Speaks Spanish and some French. Rock solid experience with RfAA, AIV, CSD and new page patrolling, while managing to avoid the drama at ANI and Arb. I noticed quality work at RfPP and first reviewed in July.

Questions

These are the exact questions that will be asked at RfA, in addition to the questions asked by individuals. I've added a few more to help you. This of this as a worksheet to let you prepare. The extra questions cover some of the current hot topics.

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A I intent to work in vandalism fighting, such as RfPP, AIV, CSD, and UAA. Those are the places I am most comfortable in, having working in them since last year when I started to become active. I would take on speedy deletions cautiously because a new article must adhere to specific criteria in order to be speedy deleted, or else it should be deleted or kept another way. I have voted on some AfDs, however, if I start working in that area, I would only do snow keeps and closes according to consensus in order to gain experience in other administrator areas.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: From an article standpoint, I would like to say Yankees–Red Sox rivalry and The Walking Dead (TV series) are my best article contributions. I nominated both as a good article and addressed the concerns of the nominators. Both articles involved finding reliable sources and grammar changes to make them the utmost quality. I also think my additions to the current event portal are my other best contributions, having almost 400 edits. From a gnomish standpoint, my best contributions are my vandalism reverts and reports. I think vandalism fighting is necessary in order to preserve the nature of an online encyclopedia.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have not been in any conflicts that gave me stress, however I have gotten angry messages from some users about me reverting of their edits or me tagging their article for speedy deletion. Luckily, I have not gotten into the drama over at WP:ANI nor do I intend to if I am an administrator. If I get into a dispute in the future, I will engage the other party with civility, as that is the only way to calmly explain your point. Sometimes, fighting fire with fire is not always the way to solve a conflict. I would always take into account their viewpoint and assume good faith wherever possible to solve the conflict quickly and efficiently.

Additional questions

4. You have a lot of automated edits, why?

A: I have used automated programs (Twinkle, HotCat, etc.) because it is sometimes more efficient and quick to warn vandals, for example. As a vandal fighter and a gnome, I can use programs to efficiently revert vandalism more quickly than manually edit out the vandalism. Automatic programs are not always bad, but they are efficient and helpful

5. Explain our copyright policy as you would to a new user.

A: Wikipedia's copyright policies are very extensive because we do not want to infringe on copyright holder's work, whether it be images, videos, or text. Unless the media is in the public domain or another compatible license, no one should ever copy a copyright holder's work, along with claiming it as their own work. One exception, however, is fair use. Fair use is used only in specific cases where free material cannot accurately describe the subject.

6. When should you block someone for incivility?

A: A user should be blocked for incivility if he/she is continuing to disrupt the civil atmosphere of Wikipedia and if the user is making personal attacks or long disruption. Uninvolved administrators should approach all civility cases independently and should take all approaches before a block. They should be familiar with the background of the user's incivility and should think if the block will stop disruption and incivility in the future.

7. Have you edited under other accounts?

A: I have only editing under my primary account. I filed for a usurpation for this current username last March due to previous privacy issues of my last username. My secondary account, User:Luke (alt), is only used for public computers and not my home network. I have not, as of now, editing on my secondary account.

8. How would you deal with a paid editor creating borderline notable articles?

A: New articles by paid editors should be reviewed extensively for conflict of interest violations, among others.. First off, it should be determined if the editor is exhibiting paid advocacy, or promoting a specific subject of an article. If there is no sign of a COI and there is enough independent, reliable sources, then I would leave the article, but I would put it on my watchlist for potential future problems.