User blog comment:Alemas2005/Administrator Performance Ratings - Two Years-2 months Later (with non-RfA Admins)/@comment-4041224-20160220144500

First off, those clarifications behind the numbers really aren't helping :P This makes it difficult to come up with a rating that seems fair and not degrading in any way, a simple gradual scale from positive to negative would have been far more effective and unbiased. Just some advice for next time.

Second point, all ratings will be kept lower than usual in this time due to collective failure on cases such as Psycho and the degeneration of wiki atmosphere altogether, hence I will be very reluctant to give out 5s. I understand that these things cannot be blamed on the admins alone, but they're being rated and they certainly contributed in some way, shape or form, so it needs to be considered.

Third point, people in other comments have often brought up specific admin's personalities as something to be rated; I believe that is fully inadequate, as they do not primarily reflect their performance as administrators. Personalities do have an impact on that, but saying stuff like "X is a great person to talk to" seems like something you'd say to not offend whoever you're talking about with following criticism. Hence, do not take anything I say in the following personally, because it really bucking isn't meant to insult you. :P

I.

A) Alemas2005: 4.5, really, but I'm actually going to round that up to 5. It contradicts my previous statement to some extent, but bear with me.

I feel like not much has changed since last votes, Alemas still has the best intentions for the wiki, takes intiative in new ideas (as evidenced by that letter to the MBs, as ineffective as that may have proven to be eventually) and seems to be the main motor behind all that happens in the admin world on the wiki these days, given how often you see him calling out fellow admins on chat to vote/check the admin site/etc. 0.5 are subtracted due to aforementioned reasons and an air of general irratability that seems to surround him as of late, but that's been an underlying issue with the wiki recently so it's not necessarily personnel failure on his part. He'll still deal with issues once they are presented to him.

B) Eagleeyedan: I'd side with TSA on the 'no rating' side, but that contradicts the format, so 1.

He's just plain inactive. I'm not questioning his competence, just the how much of a positive contribution to the team he can actually pose when he literally does not visit the site anymore.

C) Goggles99: I'm going to have to go with 2.

Aside from a general lack of activity, I feel like he doesn't seem to be interested in fulfilling admin-specific duties or contribute to the political development of the wiki. I do not believe I have seen him even vote on basic CVs, which really is a level of dedication one could expect from a regular user, let alone administrator. Now, chances are this did happen in a one-sentence-post, but I think it's fully adequate to at least clarify your position or get involved in the discussion that goes along with it. The fact that I've repeatedly observed Alemas essentially pressure him into checking the admin site on chat doesn't really help.

D) Jdude420: 3, mostly relative to other admins than the scale itself.

Good involvement and activity, however I believe he often fails to handle CM situations (such as ideological discussions on chat or debates of all kinds in general) with the rationality and calmness that is adequate for admin. It's perfectly fine to still have an opinion along with your rights, but watching your tone is essential. Plus, those shonky deals with evidence in Fort's case that some other people have mentioned before.

E) Loney 97: 4, again, relative to other admins than the actual scale.

I'm finding it hard to actually criticise anything about what you do, because pacifying involvement in heated debates and activity are top notch, but I think some more presence in discussions would be in order. Perhaps that's just because of the topics that have recently been brought up, though, so I'm not entirely positive about that.

F) Madkatmaximus: Oh dear, uh, 3?

I have some issues with the way she has apparently been viewing her responsibilities as an admin, by which I mostly mean a lack of solemnity, however that's basically evened out by discussion involvement. I haven't really seen her act as a regulating entity on chat either, and we mustn't forget that administrators still have CM duties layered on top of their specific rights and responsibilities. Really, I'm siding with most others here who described a general displeasure with her attitude. G) MeltE2: 4. Same as with Loney, really; plus points for dealing with visuals and coding.  H) Riolu777: I'm oddly positive he's a 4, but I'm less clear on the reasoning. :P Good handling of chat and other battlegrounds, valid reasoning in CVs, always cooperative and willing to interact with other admins and the community. Good job mate. :p  I) ZXSpidermanXZ: 4.  Efficiency deficits, otherwise generally decent performance in all regards; could use a more confident and solidified position in most affairs simply to deal with things quickly and minimise disruption, but I suppose I'm just notpicking.  II. ale is best admin