Wikipedia:Editor review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
WP:ER redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Expert retention or Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.
Shortcuts:
WP:ER
WP:ERV

General information
   Main page
   Discussion
   Backlog
   Archives: (2005–2008) • (2009)
   Templates
edit · changes

Wikipedia's Editor review process allows users' behavior and contributions to Wikipedia to be evaluated by peers, who will provide constructive feedback on areas for improvement. Anybody may be reviewed, regardless of their tenure at Wikipedia. Users requesting a review of their administrative actions should see Wikipedia:Administrator review.

When asking for a review, please consider reviewing another editor.
Purge page cache if reviews haven't updated.

[edit] Guidelines

Reviewers and reviewees should adhere to Wikipedia's behavioral policies at all times.

When reviewing, consider these points:

  • User conduct – informative edit summaries, constructive comments on talk page, attitude toward others, etc.
  • Number and types of edits – is the editor making positive contributions to the encyclopedia?

Users with an asterisk next to their name in the subheader have not been reviewed yet. Users may still need more reviews even if they do not have an asterisk.

Click here for the backlog of unreviewed requests.

[edit] Requesting reviews

If you would like to be reviewed, please follow the steps below:

  • Create a subpage using the box below, replacing "USERNAME" with your own username. NOTE: Please make sure there is no space after your username, as this makes it hard for reviewers to reach your request.


  1. If you have had a previous editor review, create a new one appending a number after your username [usually, (2) if it is your second review, (3) if it is the third, etc]. The preferred format is as follows: Wikipedia:Editor review/John Doe (2)
  2. Do not save the new page yet! Replace "STATEMENT" in the edit box at the bottom of the page with a brief message about yourself and why you want to be reviewed. You must change "USERNAME" TO YOUR OWN USERNAME
  3. Click "Request a review", which will take you to the edit form for your editor review.
  4. Follow the instructions above the editor form to complete your request.
  5. Optional: You may put the {{Editor review}} template or the {{Editor review sticker}} template on your user page to advertise the review page.
  6. Optional: It is possible to add a userbox onto your talk page (after the review is finished) by placing {{User Editor review}} at your user box section at your User page.

[edit] Archives

Sections with at least one review will be archived at Wikipedia:Editor review/Archive (2009) thirty days after they have been created. If you are searching for an archive from before 2009, it will be in the 2005–2008 archive. Depending on the year your request was created, it will be archived in the corresponding archive page.

Contents

[edit] Current requests

[edit] Tyw7*

Tyw7 (talk • contribs • count) Hi. I am User Tyw7. I have been previously editing as Troop350 (talk · contribs). I have made over 268 minor edits and major on Wikipedia as both Tyw7 and Troop350. I have worked on two artiles Norton Internet Security and Norton 360, which are now listed as Good Articles Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 12:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews


Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My best contributions to Wikipedia I have to say are the articles Norton 360 and Norton Internet Security, particularly Norton 360. This is because both of these articles are now listed as Good Articles. In addition, I have made many edits so I consider all my work good contribution to Wikipedia.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I have so far not encounter any edit conflits with other users. The only users I have edit conflict is with myself. For example, I was editing two pages and on one of the pages require me to login. When I did that, when I tried to save the page I edited with an anonymous IP, I have an edit conflict with my logged on account and my anonymous IP account. Therefore, I can say I have not have any edit conflicts with other users. When I encounter any edit conflicts with another user, I would cancel my edit. Then I would consider both sides and solve the conflict calmly. I would consider the information that user wishes to add to Wikipedia.

---

[edit] Sk8er5000*

Sk8er5000 (talk • contribs • count) I am after a editor review to see in which areas of Wikipedia I can improve. I am interested in eventually getting MacBook to FA status, becoming a SPI clerk and becoming a admininstrator. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews


Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My primary contributions to Wikipedia have been to the article MacBook, which I have had a peer review done on, and in the anti-vandal area, where I did a large amount of work using Huggle, and also keeping the article Best & Less free of conflits of interest. I am pleased with those edits as I have worked quite hard on them, and are just generally proud with them.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I have yet to experence any major stress on Wiki. I intend to deal with this in future by negoating with the other person, and getting a 3rd opinion from a uninvolved editor.

[edit] Smallman12q*

Smallman12q (talk • contribs • count) I would like to know what the general community thinks of me. Smallman12q (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews


Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My primary contributions is my work at DYK and the hundred articles I created. Generally, I have been contributing in various parts of wikipedia (exploring in a way), but I am becoming more focused on article development and contributions in encyclopedia area iteslf. I also have about 5000 edits in six months, so I am fairly active by wikipedia standards.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    My only editing dispute so far has been with chemtrails. I responded by creating a relevant discussion thread on the talk page and sought to see why it was that I was in the "wrong." I believe that disputes can be solved with a simple discussion and with a bit of common sense.

[edit] Yellow Evan*

Yellow Evan (talk • contribs • count) I have been editing her since August 2008 and have made 3000 edits, though I have been blocked four times, though I have not been blocked in 6 months. I have 8 GA's though, I was not nominator on all of these, though I have edited all of these articles. Now I want to feedback about my progrees recently. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 16:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

You've definitely improved your writing ability and now you generally discuss something before you make a significant edit. None of your intensions (from what I've seen) have been bad, all are in good faith. Concerning what you've hear on IRC with FAs, you shouldn't focus on a large project that involves getting several articles to FA status, it's best to stay focused on one article until it's done (I'm being a hypocrite in this case) before worrying about featured stuff. As I've gathered from some of our conversations, your current plan is to get the 1996 Pacific hurricane season to Good Topic; a good topic is a (pardon the pun) good way to start out with larger projects but, as I said, it's better to focus on one at a time. Keep up the good work with Boris and if you need help with writing any part of the articles just ask me or any other members of the project. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    While a partly contributed to 8 GA's most of my "true" articles have been merged, but a plan to unmerge and expand one, however. The one that I have left that I had written with little help was Hurricane Boris (1996) which currently stands at C class
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I am involved in this huge conflict that some of the (non-WP:TC editors may have heard) Tropical Cyclone editors have been in conflicts over notability. Most notably, Hurricanehink (who used to be my role model) has been arguing with me and Julaincolton about if all tropical cyclones are notable and if the NHC is it's own source and now about timeline articles. Also, occasionally Jason Reess says bad words to me. I then contacted an admin

[edit] mynameinc*

mynameinc (talk • contribs • count) I recently surpassed 2000 edits, and I wanted to know if I was still doing everything right. I have had minor disputes with editors, but that is all in the past. mynameincOttoman project 12:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews


Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My primary contributions are my created articles and reverted vandalism. I am particularly pleased with New York City ethnic enclaves, B-Class, Good Article nominee, brought from Stub.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    Yes, I have been in conflicts over editing, and I may get aggressive and inflamed, but I try to stay calm.

[edit] LedgendGamer

LedgendGamer (talk • contribs • count) I've technically been on Wikipedia for years, but I only made a handful of edits before leaving. I rediscovered the account a while ago, and decided to start contributing (improvements in maturity, writing skill, etc). I've decided that, after breaking 2500 edits, I should be told how I'm doing, as the community sees it. —LedgendGamer 00:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Props for the awesome username. Looking through your contribs was pretty interesting, because it showed two things: First, you mean it when you say you're pretty heavy on the vandal-bashing and second, all that vandal work with Twinkle? That's an impressive amount of time, considering the amount of people using Huggle. +1 for the obvious dedication. According to the edit counter, you're somewhere around 42% for article work. That's pretty good. The 47% on User_talk is also pretty good; communication is always a plus. As far as comments or any real reviewing material goes, I only have a couple things that come to mind. (Because it's not like anything I've said you didn't already know.) It's always nice to see people upholding any credibility Wikipedia may have by getting rid of the obvious downside to opening an encyclopedia to the masses (i.e., vandals), but you might want to work a bit more in XfDs or even on small gnomish, unimportant, completely trivial junk. You also might want to look into joining WikiProjects relevant to your interests. That could be a nice way to get some article writing under your belt. You've earned two points thus far: the username (which I really like, for no particular reason) and the obvious dedication to the project. You'll most definitely earn more as time goes by, just keep up the good work. P.S. Consoles are fun and all, but I'm a more tabletop guy myself. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    The vast majority of my editing is directed towards fighting vandals. A good chunk of that also goes towards CSD and AfD. The remainder is small stuff like wikignoming and the occasional actual content development. I find it difficult to be particularly pleased about something as mundane as keeping vandals off the website, but somebody needs to do it.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    The only conflicts I've been involved in are with particularly determined vandals. When it comes to actual content disputes, I try to see them coming and explain myself in advance. If I can't keep out of disputes (I know it will inevitably happen at some point), I will stick as closely to general dispute resolution practices as possible. As for stress, once again, it's nothing more than the occasional persistent vandal. When I can feel stress affecting me, I usually take a break and approach it with a level head later.

[edit] The Earwig

The Earwig (talk • contribs • count) I am requesting this editor review because I have been on Wikipedia for a while now and I am curious as to how the community views my contributions. In the future (maybe a year or two) I plan on running for adminship, so I would like to know how I am doing on that path. The questions below, especially Q1, should sum up my contributions to Wikipedia. The Earwig (Talk | Contributions) 02:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

  • It's really nice to see article writers who go after such a small, specific topic and really make a difference. As you said, you bumped it from 5 to 87. That's awesome. Plus, you also do really nice reference work, and that's something I love to see, out of respect for the project and love for it as well, so that's cool. I also love doing menial, and possibly trivial work. So that's cool too. You also do a lot of MfD, which is good. AfCs are better, and receive a bit less attention, so it's great you're dedicated to that. I'd suggest a bit more article work, just because you're hitting around 32% and I'm sure you could do make some great contributions if you worked at it a bit more in that regard. Still, it most definitely makes up for it that you're putting a lot of time into other regards as well. Nice work, and happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! Yeah, the 32% thing is definitely something I want to work on. It used to be much higher, but I got held up by so much other stuff that I've been unable to sit down and just write an article. I'll get back to doing more of the article work soon, though. Again, thanks! The Earwig (Talk | Editor review) 23:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My primary contributions to Wikipedia up until a short while ago was a series of stub articles related to earwigs that I had been writing. I wrote one DYK entirely on my own (except for the help of one contributor who made minor changes), and created a grand total of over seventy articles relating to the insect order. I effectively expanded Category:Earwigs: it contained five articles when I started, and now it has 87. I also spend time reverting vandalism (I have the rollback pemission), commenting on AfDs, reviewing Articles for Creation submissions, and working with the Account Creation Tool (I have the accountcreator permission also). Recently, I began working with bot programming, a topic which I find rather interesting and I've enjoyed doing this very much. If I have to point to one contribution I have made that I'm especially pleased with of, it would probably be the DYK article that I mentioned earlier: Archidermapteron martynovi. I'm pleased with this in part because it was my first serious contribution to Wikipedia. I also find the fact that an article that I mostly wrote was displayed in part on the homepage of the seventh-most popular website in the world to be rather amazing. I also consider this to be a difficult feat because there is barely any information about the species on the internet, so it wasn't easy to research.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    Despite doing vandalism-cleanup work, it's hard to point to one situation where I had a user running after me, screaming my username, and cursing, nor have I been in any edit wars. However, there have been multiple times when I feel like I did something wrong or didn't think carefully enough about what I was about to do. An example of this is an experience I had with a user only a few weeks ago. The user in question is Yx7791 (talk · contribs), what happend was that I was browsing newly-created articles, and I came upon this one. It struck me as not notable because there was no mention of signifigance in the article. While the article was certainly verifiable (the user had put excelent sources in the article), I was a little unsure of the subject's notability, so I brought it up at AfD. In retrospect, discussing it with the author would have been a much better option, but this did not occur to me at the time for some reason. Contrary to what I had hoped, the user destroyed my argument, and then threatened to quit Wikipedia. As you can guess, this was a severe blow to me. I thought that I had just made a user quit Wikipedia— obviously a terrible feeling— all because I thought that the subject wasn't notable. Fortunately, it ended on a happier note, and the user still contributes today. Looking back, I'm concerned about what led me to do this. The article was clearly notable... wasn't it? I can only hope that I don't do something like that again.

[edit] FingersOnRoids

FingersOnRoids (talk • contribs • count) I've been on Wikipedia for a couple of months now, and I'd like to know how I'm doing so far, basically what my strengths are, and what things I need to improve on. I'm currently adopted by Wadester 16. ƒingersonRoids 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Note: you can see my quick review here. wadester16 | Talk→ 21:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I noticed you only have 4 edits to the "File" namespace. You may want to consider gaining more experience there. Copying eligible files to Commons is one option. If you are interested in that, and would like some help, let me know.--Rockfang (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, what exactly does that entail? Working with files has never really interested me; I find it a little too technical and boring. ƒingersonRoids 02:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I normally just hit "random article" until I come across an article with an image. In preferences I have the "navigation popups" gadget enabled. That allows me to tell by mousing over whether or not an image is on commons already, and what license the image is using. If the image isn't on Commons, and isn't non-free, then I use this script (which puts a tab on the top of the image's page) to move the image over. On the resulting page I untick "Use WikiSense to suggest categories" and tick "Remove existing categories". Click "get text", save the file locally, then click the "upload at commons" button. Just gotta make sure to add a category when putting the file on Commons. You can then use {{ncd}} on the Wikipedia copy to mark it as a duplicate.--Rockfang (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My edits are pretty diverse; I just edit in whatever area I feel interested in at the time. Currently, I'm focusing on WP:UAA, WP:AFC/R and new page patrolling, such as WP:CSD tagging, and cleaning up new articles in general to meet Wikipedia standards. In addition to these, I've spent time at WP:RM, WP:AFD, WP:AFC, WP:DYK, WP:3o, naming some off the top of my head. I'd have to say that I'm most pleased with my New Page patrol work, essentially singlehandedly improving It's Just a Plant from a two sentence stub with a prod tag over its head, to an article mentioned on the main page, in the DYK section. I also feel I do good speedy deletion work, and strictly adhere to the criteria for speedy deletion, unlike some other new page patrollers I've seen, who sometimes tag hastily, and bend the criteria for speedy deletion. This bothers me, because speedy delete tags that are placed incorrectly are especially bitey to newcomers. These kinds of things drive away users that could contribute constructively to Wikipedia.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I did get in somewhat of a dispute with Permethius about him putting a tag on his page that said that it was a policy page, the dispute can be found on our talk page archives. I tried to deal with it patiently, and explain why I thought it was inappropriate for it to be there.
  3. I noticed you seem to be a fan of complicated processes. When do you think it's appropriate to apply WP:IAR? Gigs (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, I'm assuming that you are referring to our discussion on WP:UAA? I'm not a fan of complicated processes, I am just saying that WP:UAA is supposed to be used for reporting usernames, hence the name of the page. If you found a user that was creating spammy articles which had coi problems, with a username that is not in violation with the username policy, the best places to go would be WP:WPSPAM or WP:COIN, because that's what they're there for. I think that we'd both agree on that. That being said, most admins on WP:UAA just go through and block accounts like Marcpage for being spam accounts if they're in obvious violation, since it saves the trouble of reporting them again to other places.FingersOnRoids 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a pretty good answer. Yes, I admit this is mostly prompted by our UAA interaction, but also because you had the "process is important" userbox. I figured since you put yourself up for review, this might be a useful conversation. Had you not been here I'd have probably just dropped it, as I am sure someone will take care of MARC either way (I did post it on WPSPAM as well after your objection). I can see how the username might technically not belong in UAA, but my main point was that the account was clearly a group/organizational account that was promoting said group/organization, which arguably is the spirit of the "promotional username" policy (and how it is often applied), rather than the literal string that forms the username. Anyway, it's a good interaction to keep in mind as you go forward toward your RfA, as surely some people might oppose you if they believe you too literal in policy application. Gigs (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, my process is important userbox is mainly referring to my CSD work, and how I've seen many new articles that have been tagged with poorly thought out speedy deletion tags; for example the A1 criteria being used by careless newpage patrollers because they don't like it that there is an article on exploding whales on Wikipedia, etc. I find it extremely important not to WP:BITE the newbies, and improperly used speedy delete tags can do exactly that. Improper speedy deletes can turn off a newcomer editing in good faith, if their article is deleted off wikipedia a minute after they created it, with a tag that doesn't even exactly make sense. Its important to show them that we have a deletion policy we adhere to, and that articles won't be deleted just because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I can't find a speedy tag that exactly fits." That being said, I don't have a major problem with people reporting usernames that are being used for promotion at UAA; the problem gets solved either way, but for organization's sake, next time just take it to WP:WPSPAM. Thanks for the input, FingersOnRoids 02:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
There's actually a discussion going on now about this at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Proposed_addition. I'm with you on the overuse of speedy in some cases. Gigs (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Skaterthealmighty

Skaterthealmighty (talk • contribs • count) I am celebrating my 1000th wikipedia edit, and would like to see how I'm doing in my quest for a future RFA. I have expanded my field since my last review. I am now participating in WP:XFD and have created the article Greg Boone SKATER Speak. 04:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Hello fellow AfD'er. I've seen you around there, so I already like ya'. :P But I do have some actual critiques/comments, call it what you will. The first and probably most precedent for an editor review (or RfA for that matter) is to answer in a bit more detail. Okay, you fight vandals. Congrats, so does everyone else. New Page Patrol? A bit more specific, but still kinda commonplace. According to the edit counter, you're hitting around 38% for articles. That's good, but could always be better (but, honestly, don't mind me; I'm somewhere at around 42%). Poking through your contribs, I had trouble finding anything that wasn't from Huggle or an AfD. That's all fine and good, but for someone looking to be a janitor, you might want to peek around some of the corners of Wikipedia. I've heard dudes and ladies that know a lot about image policy and that jive are in some high demand. You could check out WP:AFC, if you want to get your hands on some article writing. Nice job so far, and happy editing. Congrats on 1000. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check it out.--SKATER Speak. 03:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever works for you. Just some suggestions. I also suggest hitting this little button and fixing what you can. That's a fun game! Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I am primarily a Vandal Fighter and aNPP, and am quite proud of those edits.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    Recently I had my first conflict on Wikipedia, which [I had to report to Wikiquette alerts.]I feel I handled the situation well, but I probably would of taken it too WA faster.

[edit] Mm40

Mm40 (talk • contribs • count) Hello all. I had an editor review a while back (see here), but I felt I have changed dramatically as an editor. As suggested in my previous review, I have fixed formatting problems I previously had, always used edit summaries, and focused much more on the mainspace. I know I'm probably not ready to be an administrator, but I'd like to know what the community thinks what I need to do to get there. Cheers Mm40 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Mm40 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Good edits generally. A cursory glance brings up one major concern though. "I think that vandals really uplift the mood on Wikipedia" and the like  — such comments are just plain worrying. Our goal is to build a serious encyclopaedia, not a jungle gym for people who like to cause BLP issues (which are very serious), and who like to talk about the size of their genitalia. — neuro(talk) 14:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    Admittedly, I am not an article-writer, which you can probably see from the few things I've written that are supposedly articles ;). But I do a bit of everything. I patrol new articles (often tagging them for speedy deletion), welcome new users, review articles at FAC, revert and report vandalism using Huggle (or manually), and cleanup articles, in addition to many other things. Mm40 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I have not been in any real conflicts, something that may hold me back in an RfA. I have however tried to settle disputes a couple of times at the mediation cabal. But to answer the questions, I haven't been in any conflicts, and I will probably deal with stress by taking a break from whatever's causing me stress and doing some of the things I mentioned above. Mm40 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Basket of Puppies

Basket of Puppies (talk • contribs • count) After several months of editing Wikipedia and undergoing adoption I am genuinely curious to know how my edits have measured up. Your feedback is welcome! Basket of Puppies 01:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Too many puppies, being shot in the dark. Oh, sorry, excuse me. Primus got in the way there for a second. First things first, I like the 50% article edits, that's really cool. What can I say about your edits? This: you are awesome. If it's fair to judge personalities through wikipedia edits, than you are awesome. For someone only breaking 700, you have got some great article work done. A GA largely attributed to you, another article in the works. Did I mention you are quite polite exactly when you need to be. Don't even get me started on, "I mostly browse random articles adding refs, reflists and cleaning up as best as I can." Just don't. :P Judging by your contribs, our interests lie in different places, but I'd be quite honored to work with you at some point in the future. Happy editing! Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My primary contributions to Wikipedia have been in the realm of content. I am particularly pleased about New Waveland Cafe and Clinic, which I created and collaborated on to make into a WP:Good Article.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I believe I have not been in any major editing dispute. When the situation arises I make certain to carefully read the opinion of the other editors involved. I do my best to be humble and see things from their point of view.

Comment by User:NVO. Perhaps four months of active editing do qualify as "several" but you should consider delaying RFA by a couple of years. No sarcasm here: after four months on the force, your actual content contribution rate is quite modest, very few articles actively edited, and those are either specialized medical topics or "places of local interest" - something that does not grab public attention and is not on many editors' watchlist. Your CSD tagging errors ([1], [2], [3]) coupled with a desire to do CSD (per User:Basket of Puppies/admin) are a guarantee of failure for quite a while, so they better be AFD'd for good. Remember, folks at RFA don't sift through last 2000 edits, they go deeper. NVO (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to NVO Hi, NVO! First, let me thank you for your thoughtful comments. I do appreciate them. I reviewed the articles which I tagged for speedy deletion and I agree with you- it was a mistake for me to tag them. I will certainly be more thoughtful in the future. I am glad you pointed out those specific ones and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. As far an my content contribution, while modest I think they are well developed. I have been successful in creating and achieving Good Article status for one and am actively working on Good Article for another. However, I agree that my area has been a bit narrow. Once the current Good Article assessment has succeeded I plan on "branching out". As far as my admin aspirations, I want to make sure I am an excellent editor before any attempt at adminship- thus the reason for this Editor Review. Again, thank you for your thoughts and I will certainly incorporate your suggestions. :) Basket of Puppies 01:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MelicansMatkin

MelicansMatkin (talk • contribs • count) I've been an editor on Wikipedia for over 3 years now and made over 6000 edits, but I have never had an editor review before; they say you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but I would like to know what I have been doing right, and what I need to improve on. I'm not particularly interested in trying to become a sysop; I've been too involved in some conflicts in the past, and I feel as if I'd probably screw it up if I ever did become one. This is just so I can see how I have been doing as a user, and how I can improve both my edits and my conduct. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Review By Permethius

Hey, I've seen you edit countless times, infact, I actually look at how you control certain conflicts.Also you are very knowledgable about WP:Policies , and Guidelines.I have had some help from other editors but I mostly learned these from you.Also, I looked at your work on U2 and the related subjects, very nice indeed.One thing you could improve on, as with WP:PCP, when you commented on WP:N main points being Critical Reception and Cultural Impact, when they were only examples.So sometimes I've seen you interpret Policies to what you think they are, or you cut them, which I have seen improvement on. But other than that, you've been a great editor. Peace Out --Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeathER 13:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I used to be actively involved in editing the U2 and Pokémon related articles, as well as watching out for vandalism on Recent Changes. As of late I tend to focus mainly on removing vandalism that from pages on my (lengthy) watchlist. I've also put a lot more emphasis on talk page discussion than actual edits, especially when edit wars are impending. On occasion I've even opened discussions to solve disputes I'm not even involved in. I guess you could say that I spend most of my time focusing on discussion over what edits should be made rather than actively making them. As for contributions I'm pleased/proud of, I would have to say it's helping to get U2 to FA, the immense amount of work I've put into No Line on the Horizon which is now a GA, and my contributions to "White as Snow (song)". I suppose the essay's I've recently written would qualify too.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I've probably been involved in more disputes than I can list. This is frequently because of simple misunderstandings with other editors, although some issues have been more serious. A couple of these have stressed me out and made me take brief breaks from the Project, but I generally try to open discussions on either the relevant article's talk page or the other user's talk page in order to avoid edit wars if possible.

Question by Permethius

  1. You stated that you don't think you can become a Admin because of your previous warring.Do you think this can't be forgiven for your knowledge of Policies or amount of edits--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 17:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'm sure there are people who have become admins after receiving warnings/blocks in the past, and I'm sure there are people who are blocked as admins but continue with no major difficulties after it expires. If I were ever to be nominated, I'm sure that my previous 8-hour block would be a problem for some, as would the other warnings I have been given in the past (though most have been given in error; those who warned me acknowledged as much later after I contacted them about it). A nomination for a sysop requires people to check all areas to ensure the promotion of a candidate is in Wikipedia's best interest. I've been here more than long enough to gain an understanding of many policies and guidelines, and am old enough that my age would not be factor. Understandably my previous block would be a concern for many. But while I would be flattered to be nominated by another user, I would probably decline the offer before it ever came down to "Support/Oppose/Neutral". Limited time is not a good thing, and as I said above I would probably end up screwing it all up. I feel that I would best be able to serve the Project as a regular user, though as I said if a user thinks otherwise and nominates I would be very flattered. As for the number of edits I have made, it should not be the quantity of edits that matters, but the quality of them. Are my edits consistently at a high enough standard? That's not for me to say or judge.

[edit] Mlaffs*

Mlaffs (talk • contribs • count) I've been a user of this site for a number of years, and a registered editor since November of 2007. I was directed here by someone who I was asking to look at my contributions for a potential RfA, and have to admit that this was one of the nooks and crannies that I'd never seen before. So, I'm here primarily for that, but also because feedback is never a bad thing — well, constructive feedback isn't, anyway. BTW, please take my edit count with a grain of salt. It's high-ish, but it's a nature of the type of things I've been doing and I don't have any illusions that it's in any way a reflection of the value of those contributions. 'Taint nothin' but a number. Mlaffs (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews


Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My contributions to Wikipedia are easily summed up as gnome-like. I tend to look for a task or project and then work the heck out of it. The project I'm most proud of took place through last summer, where I cleaned up incoming links to almost every single disambiguation page that included radio or television call signs. Probably 7-8K edits in total with only about a hundred that I wasn't able to solve. My most recent big project was doing a run through the FCC's radio station database to develop a list of our gaps in coverage (building and maintaining that list accounts for what looks like an inordinately large number of edits in Userspace — it's a sub-page). That work led to dozens of page moves to get articles named correctly, and adding project tags to numerous talk pages that hadn't yet been identified. It was the page move piece of that work that got me thinking about an RfA in the first place.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I think I can honestly say that the vast majority of my interactions with other editors have been positive, or at least no worse than neutral. That being said, I have been involved with the ongoing date delinking arbitration case. I'm not an involved party, but I'm certainly an interested one. I have absolutely no opinion about date autoformatting, nor am I particularly wedded to most date links themselves. However, I did take part in some AN/ANI threads about the process piece of this — the manner in which the mass delinking effort was effected — and so I've been involved with the Arbcom case from that perspective. All that being said, there's little here that's stressful. I do big thinking involving big risks all day long at work. This is where I come to do bite-sized, repetitive tasks to wind down at night or while I'm watching a ball game on the weekends, so I'm simply not prepared to let stress mess with that. Deep breaths, and all that.

Discussion

  • Edit count posted on talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Antivenin

Antivenin (talk • contribs • count) I want to RfA in a few months, and I'd like to see if I'm on the right track. AvN 17:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

  • I've seen some of your edits in areas around WP:RFA, UAA and browsed through your contributions as well. I think you have a good knowledge of policies, and I see no signs of incivility. You've been calm and objective as far as I can see and even avoid voting in AfDs where you have a conflict of interest or bias. However, zero content contribution is not something to be proud of. Infact, writing and improving articles should be the primary motive of any wikipedian; CVU/UAA etc. should be secondary. You might want to join some Wikiproject (WP:INDIA and others of your interest perhaps) and try to get involved in their activities, creating and improving articles; else you will get a bunch of opposes just for having zero content contribution, enough weight to sink an RfA. Another scrutiny you will likely face will be about transparency. People will question you 'bout creating your monobook.js on your second day with this account, early knowledge of userboxes, RC patrol etc. so you should be well prepared with answers for that too [that is if you've been editing as an IP or have used other accounts, make it clear (see Q#10 here for example)]. I see you have a very good admin coach, happy editing and good luck with the RfA! --PirateSmackKArrrr! 17:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I have 0 (ZERO) article content contributions. My interest lies in maintaining the encyclopedia and thus I believe I'd be able to help better with the mop. I have experience with AfDs, UAA, CSD tagging, etc., so that would be things I'm particularly pleased about.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    Here are a list of disputes I have been involved in. I think I handled them well, under the circumstances.

[edit] Giants27

Giants27 (talk • contribs • count) I have been here since September 2008 and had a editor review a few months ago under my old username and now that I've been here longer and have started to get involved in DYK and trying to create all the redlinks listed here. I am also targeting a late summer RfA and would like to know what I've got to work on between now and then. Thanks! Giants27 T/C 14:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Hi there! I've seen you around quite a lot out here, especially at WP:RfA. Your contributions are impressive, and the DYKs are a plus. Your article contributions are a HUGE bonus and will give you a boost in your RfA. You might wish to gain more experience at WP:AfD and the rest of the admin-ish areas though. (Note- I'd support your RfA) AvN 17:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    It has to be my creation of well over 150 (200?) biographies about Canadian Football League players.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    Definetely usually since I edit the NFL and CFL roster templates it's whether or not a player was signed and I usually just double check stuff and bring it to the other editor.

[edit] Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins

Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins (talk • contribs • count) I'd like to be reviewed to see how I am doing. A periodic review is always a good thing just to make sure I am doing everything right. I am also considering - and I have been thinking about this for a while now - once I get back into regular activity, a possible RfA. Those tools would be useful for implementing blocks on vandals, and also for page protection: another area I am interested in. Now obviously, very few to no errors would be expected of adminship, so I'd also like to check I am doing everything right for that reason as well. Also for those who don't already know this: I am Inferno, Lord of Penguins. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Your vandal fighting abilities are impressive, though if content contribution is not your specialty other areas you might wish to work at are WP:UAA, WP:RFPP, WP:AfD, and New Page Patrol. All of them will give you a better chance at passing your RfA. AvN 17:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'll be keeping these suggestions in mind. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    Waging war against vandalism using WP:HG is my primary activity. Other than that, I use my knowledge of wikipedia's working to help other editors when it is needed (at places like AN/I)
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    For a while, a user called SchnitzelMannGreek was harassing me using large amounts of sockpuppets. For a while I'd just been opening SPI cases when needed, and I started using another account (User:Knight of the Wind) to avoid harassment (Reflecting on this that wasn't entirely justified, which is why I got the name-change: to "merge" the two account's names), but since then I've tried something else: getting him to reform. Since this, he has been unblocked, and hasn't turned back to vandalism or socking, and I am even acting as his mentor (along with User:PMDrive1061). Dealing with a problem user is one thing, but when you can get them to turn around and reform, it is an amazing thing.

[edit] Alan16

Alan16 (talk • contribs • count) I've been editing Wikipedia more actively since the beginning of the year, and I would like to see what people think of my edits. Thanks. Alan16 talk 22:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

It's nice to see stuff like this. I like all that I see. You have experience on article talk pages, which is good, and more than half your edits are on articles. The work you've done here is really good, and is probably a good gauge of your article work in whole. I can't remember what the general policy or rule of thumb is on removing red links is, but I personally wouldn't. People are invited to create a new article in their is a red link there, and that's what gets people involved. Overall, nice job, and happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I contribute to a lot of sports related articles - primarily Scottish teams/players - and also a lot of fantasy literature related articles, including creating a page on David Keck and on some of the characters in Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen series. I've also uploaded some images after doing some groundwork getting the authors clearance, as copyright licensing is something I take seriously.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I have. I've tried to be civil whenever I interact with another user, however some people seem to be naturally abrasive, and whenever I run into these types of users I tend to let others in a sense moderate.

[edit] Timmeh

Timmeh (talk • contribs • count) I've been editing here on Wikipedia actively for close to two years. I've amassed almost 9,000 edits, and I haven't been on editor review yet. So, I want to know what other editors think of my edits and how I've been doing. Also, I've been thinking of running for adminship within a few months. Any advice on how to make myself worthy of the tools in the community's eyes would be appreciated as well. Timmeh! 02:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Review by Rafablu88

My experience of Timmeh has been mostly to do with his GA Reviews. I can say that he's super-quick, efficient and totally impartial. In fairness, I don't think any of that even matters. The most important thing is that he obviously cares about Wikipedia and takes the time to follow all the suitable procedures as well as responding promptly. I'm sure he'll thrive with any extra responsibility. My advice would be to keep what you're doing. Rafablu88 (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    The majority of my edits can be classified as copyediting. I usually fix the formatting, grammar, and spelling of articles I come across. I have also been reverting vandalism occasionally since I began editing. Lately, however, I have been more involved in article building. I am probably most proud of my contributions to Rise Against, which I brought up to GA status, and my edits to United States presidential election, 2008, which I improved a bit by reorganizing and rewriting several sections. The article was nominated for GA by someone else but did not pass. I am currently focusing on Appeal to Reason, which I plan to eventually nominate for GA.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I have been in several disputes during my tenure here, but I don't remember any of them escalating into uncivil bickering or anything like that. Of course other users have caused me stress, but I feel I have always remained civil. There have been certain editors that have really stressed and angered me, sometimes resulting in many lines of very heated discussions, but all were eventually resolved peacefully and according to consensus.
  3. Do you have the stamina to put up with annoying and/or aggressive editors, such as blatant vandals? For example, AFI-PUNK returned a little over a month ago with a new sock to cause others grief. I think you'd make a great admin, but if it may be too stressful for you, you don't have to. If you do become an admin, don't be surprised if vandals target you a lot. Hopefully, you'd be able to block them.--DisturbedNerd999 (Delete!) 04:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    I believe I do have the stamina to deal with blatant vandals, or at least the common sense to know to take a break if said vandal is getting on my nerves. I have encountered AFI-PUNK before. The first time was when he was using the 79.211.* IP range. The second was the 93.194.* range, and the third was when he was using the username Genre Crusher. All three times I had to revert his edits over many different articles, and what was really annoying was how he would change his IP almost every day and vandalize some more. Luckily, Seraphim was very familiar with AFI-PUNK and helped me out with blocking his individual IPs and accounts. He has also pledged to give up his two-year-long vandalizing spree. Timmeh!(review me) 20:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NuclearWarfare

NuclearWarfare (talk • contribs • count) All right, you all. Have you negative memories of your interactions with me? Feel that I'm doing something wrong? Well, this is your chance to tell me. If you even think that I have done the slightest thing wrong, please tell me, and I shall know to fix my error and my behavior for the future. Come on, don't be shy now.
I was also thinking about running for adminship again sometime later, so if anyone wants to comment on how they would (!)vote on my RfA and if oppose, why. I'd like to be able to fix my mistakes and not create drama at WP:RfA. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Update - I heard from a friend that there were a few complaints over this Editor Review because it seemed like it is "straw poll for how I would do at RfA". While it is true that I intend to try my hand at RfA again at a future date, the main purpose of this is truly for me to figure out how I can improve myself as an editor, not as a potential admin candidate. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 02:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Just a quick comment: You should review the previous RFA and the comments people left when opposing you, comparing for yourself whether you have improved on those concerns. You might want to contact some of those opposers directly and ask them to comment in this review. Regards SoWhy 20:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, thank you. I had done the former, but not the latter. Several editors have now been invited; thanks for the advice. NuclearWarfare (Talk) (How am I doing?) 20:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, since you asked, and are planning for an RfA: I'm a bit bothered by your user name. :)
    It's not that big a deal for an editor, but I really don't ever want to see a block message "You've been blocked by NuclearWarfare", or even a "Please be civil. NuclearWarfare". To me, it doesn't seem appropriate.
    Mellow greetings, Amalthea 20:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, that is a good point, and I had never really thought of that. Since my account is fully unified, and I have edits on over 50 wikis, I don't really want to change my username. Do you have a suggestion on changing my signature so that this wouldn't be an issue? (I'm thinking back to all those Huggle, Twinkle, and handwritten warnings I've given out over the past year and shuddering :( ). NuclearWarfare (Talk) (How am I doing?) 21:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
      • How about shortening it to "NWF"? SoWhy 21:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
        • NWF works, but I remembered that somtimes to denote a status, I'll use "NW|away" or "NW|around" as my username. So, I have changed my signature to: NW (Talk) (How am I doing?). Thank you for your advice on my signature, both Amalthea, and SoWhy. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 21:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • In response to Q7, what is your view on the contradictions related to cool-down blocks in policy? — neuro(talk) 01:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I really don't think there is a contradiction between a cool-down block and a civility block. I've always looked at a cooldown block as "I know what is best for you. You need a nice break from Wikipedia. Here, let me implement it for you.", while looking at civility blocks as "You are being disruptive and starting to harm the morale or the work of other users. You are blocked until you agree to fix this situation." NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 02:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I was actually talking about the nature of being punitive/preventative in cool-down blocks. In a sense, any block which isn't indefinite is a cool-down block. — neuro(talk) 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
        • In a sense, that is true. However, blocks should always be to stop future disruption to the encyclopedia. Any blocked user who the community is reasonably sure will not disrupt the encyclopedia in the future should be unblocked. Cool down blocks, at least in my view, are more of an administrator saying "I know what is best for you: a nice long break for you to think about what you are doing," while a block for disruption is more like "Your edits are actively harming the encyclopedia by inflaming tense situations, etc. I am going to block you until you realize that your actions were wrong and you will not do so in the future." Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do see a small nuance there; CDB and punitive blocks are meant as a paternalistic or punishing action, while good blocks should be made only in a manner that would protect the encyclopedia. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 16:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I was surprised that after putting a dated prod onto Yogiraj Bharat Bhushan you then proceeded to remove the link to it from Bhushan. The prod suggests people might "address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page" over the following seven days, so why are you removing links to the page? If someone were to transform the page into an acceptable WP article, would you then go back and replace links to it? Note that I am commenting on a matter of principle here, completely disregarding the particular qualities of the page in question. -- Hebrides (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I did that as more of a housekeeping move to tidy up for what I believed would be a completely noncontroversial decision in 7 days, but you are of course, correct. Looking back on it, I really should not have removed the link from the disambiguation page of Bhushan. If someone does indeed rewrite the article; I will readd that link, but in the future, I will remember to not remove the link at all until the article is deleted. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 19:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't have any concerns regarding your editing. Seen you around, and I think you're awesome. PirateSmackKArrrr! 18:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    There are several areas of the encyclopedia at which I believe I have excelled. Since my RfA five months ago, I realized that I truly ought to put in some effort writing in writing articles, and I have had more fun doing that than anything else. Articles I have worked on can be seen on my userpage. In the past, I worked a lot with countervandalism and new page patrol; I still do that, but on a global scale now. I have also done a great deal of work in the account creation process, and I've recently been helping out at DYK reviewing. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I could give the standard answer to this, but there is really no point. WP:DR says everything there, and I usually try to keep it to the first step - gather a consensus on the talk page, though I hope I haven't been rude to anyone while doing so. Again, if I have, please tell me, and I'll try to make amends. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. "Where we stand" questions from iridescent prior to actually reviewing any of your edits; these are with the assumption that you're looking at this ER as a stepping stone to RFA, rather than from the viewpoint of content-creation.
    What are your opinions (not "what you think we want to hear", and don't be afraid to say when you think policy is wrong) regarding:
    1. Semi-protection of BLPs?
      A global semi-protection of BLPs? I'd probably oppose that. However, I've taken a look around, and User:Lar/Liberal Semi seems to have a good idea. My personal standard is something like this: If an article has been vandalized more than twice within a fairly short period, or at less regular intervals for a longer period by multiple IPs (not catchable with a rangeblock) or accounts, and the vandalism isn't caught by j.delanoy a RC patroller, it is appropriate to semi-protect (or hopefully, flag-protect) the article from anywhere from a week to several months. Merging User:Lar/Liberal Semi with WP:RfPP is the best way to go for semi-protection of BLPs, I think, not semi-protecting them across the board.
    2. Flagged revisions?
      Flagged protection is...an interesting one, and I can't say I have really fully decided. When that big poll came out a few months ago, I was decidedly against it. I figured that it would end up much the same as Special:NewPages has, in a constant struggle to keep edits from falling off the end of the backlog. And I still somewhat feel that way. On the other hand, something besides "hope that RCP catches it" needs to be used for catching extreme POV or vandalism. I'm still very unsure on the idea of Flagged Revisions. Flagged Protection seemed fine to me, and perhaps a liberal use of that with a change in our blocking policy so that 1 BLP vandalism = multi-week block would be a good idea.
    3. IRC?
      I see no problem with IRC. To me, it is simply a way to communicate about Wikipedia, get real time information on certain stalked pages, fight vandalism on small wikis, or create accounts for those who need them. I have never really understood the fuss about IRC. Then again, I do not participate in some the larger channels (#wikipedia, #wikipedia-en) and primarily use IRC for coordination of things that would be too cumbersome to do on wiki. IRC is fairly useful, but not perfect, method of communication for getting things done quickly, which is why I still use it. I have heard the horror stories, such as Giano's RfAr, but I intend to and have stayed clear of any nonsense that involves blocking a non-blatant vandal if I pass an RfA.
      Full disclaimer: I use IRC. My usual channel list as follows: "##juliancolton (Juliancolton's private channel, with a very few number of users. The channel is open to all, and freenode staff monitor it, so it isn't a cabal), #wikipedia-en-accounts (the WP:ACC channel), #cvn-sw (small wiki countervandalism), #wikimedia-stewards (the stewards' channel), #stewardbot (A channel where I can enter commands to Pathoschild's IRC bot [global block, etc.] which will be carried out if he approves them), #cvn-simplewikis (countervandalism for the simple.projectname projecst, on request of another administrator), and the mostly-deprecated, but still somewhat used #wikipedia-en-alerts (bot reportings mostly)
    4. Civility blocks?
      Ah, civility blocks, the dreaded bane of the community. Quite honestly, I have no idea how I would feel if I were to receive one, but I would hope that if I did, it would be for something I deserved after I received a warning and not something frivolous. I agree with the policy of implementing civility blocks when a user is becoming clearly disruptive, but I would really hate to implement them myself and think that at least two, but more if possible, administrators should come to a joint decision to implement a civility block, to make sure it isn't colored by personal feelings, as the block is a very subjective thing.
    5. Ageism?
      As X! once succinctly, "If you want the usual teenager, AIV is thataway". A teenager who has worked here for an extended period of time will have likely shown that they are more mature than the vast majority of his peers. If are immature, that will be painfully obvious. Wikipedia is seen as a "geeky" thing to most middle and high school students. Geeky things tend to attract the geeks, who often are willing to spend hours and hours on building our encyclopedia. And that's all that really should matter. It doesn't matter who writes the articles, but rather, that they get written. Arbitrarily excluding users from the project on the basis of age (not maturity, which is completely different) is counterproductive to our Vision.
    6. What the role and purpose of admins should be?
      Huh. This is a very interesting question. The editors who believe that adminship should be no big deal often say that "an administrator is simply an editor with a few extra buttons." I believe that this is the correct way to view the "bit". Administrators should not use their status to bully or push a PoV. They should merely continue acting how they would if they were a regular editor, but help out in a few additional areas as well. Any experienced editor (6 months+) in good standing should be treated the same as an adminstrator, nothing more, nothing less.
    7. Cool-down blocks?
      Cool down blocks should not be used, as they will inflame the situation. Blocks for disruption to the project are acceptable, of course, but blocking any previously-constructive editor should always be done with great care and only when it is absolutely necessary.
    8. IP editors?
      Everyone (well, almost everyone) starts off editing as an IP. Though a greater proportion of vandalism does come from IPs compared to newly created accounts, allowing IP editing is still vital. It is akin to tossing a 100 hooks into the ocean. You'll get 60 fish that are too small to eat and 39 that try to bite your hand off, but you will still get one nice perfect flounder. And it is worth tossing the other 99 hooks in there, even if they were all vandalism, which of course they aren't; IPs make good edits as well, it is worth keeping the hooks in the water just to get that one editor who sticks around.
    9. WP:AOR and whether admin terms should expire?
      I approve of it. Admins have to be accountable for their actions in some way. RfAr is simply not a viable enough alternative, in my mind. What the community grants, it also ought to be able to take away. As for expiring terms, it would be a nice idea, but with the amount of hard calls that an administrator makes, a reconfirmation RfA often becomes impossible, even if the administrator did a fairly decent job, or even an excellent one. I understand where you are coming from with the expiring terms though; administrators do need to think of how the encyclopedia works from the average editor's point of view, rather than just an administrator who basically has complete freedom to do what he or she wishes, with the current extremely high standards for desysopping.
    10. (and a real "no right answer" one to ponder): Does a demonstrable commitment to the project via a long history of high quality contributions entitle editors to more leeway when it comes to their behaviour and/or adherence to Wikipedia rules, custom and practice?
      It shouldn't. But it does. And quite honestly, this is quite a large problem for Wikipedia. You know the stories much better than I do, of course. Take someone like Giano II, for example. He is quite an excellent content contributor. On the other hand, when angry, Giano gets somewhat rude and abrasive. We're stuck in a Catch-22; the community would love his continued participation in article space, but would prefer that he doesn't stir up massive drama when he disagrees with someone. I won't pretend to know exactly what to do in these cases, except try to politely remind the user that we can all handle this maturely. I won't pretend that I have a solution for this, but hopefully one day we can find one.

[edit] Comment

I believe you are too aggressive and too nasty to be an administrator. However, work on controlling your temper and you can be a better person. The trouble with being nasty is that such behavior harms Wikipedia by chasing away others. If this happens, then the administrator, one who is supposed to help Wikipedia, actually harms the project. Don't get discouraged. If you really want to be an administrator, just be nice. User F203 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, you had posted now-oversighted material, so I felt that this warning was appropriate. It was a strong warning, but it was meant to be, as I did want you to know how inappropriate that posting was. Please see this comment for more. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 18:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your tone is nicer now, which is better. But blocking someone for life is a bit much particularly since it was sandbox material and not a real person's name or credit card number. It would be like saying "Nuclear Warfare's Visa card is issued by the Bank of the Klingon Empire and is card number 234 455 343, expiration date 12/31/2849" User F203 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DoriSmith

DoriSmith (talk · contribs) I periodically think about going for Adminship, and it seems like getting reviewed is a good step to take before that particular leap. What do y'all think? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

I admire your work. I noticed you are a rollbacker like myself. I would consider working in the anti-vandalism field more often, maybe join the Counter-Vandalism Unit (if you haven't already) as this looks good on your RfA and will really motivate users to support your campaign. I see no reason why you shouldn't have the mop within a few months. Please let me know when you plan to RfA, I'll definitely support you. Keep up the good work. T-95 (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    My top contribution (imo) has been to Donald Bren. Before I got involved, there were edit wars about whether it should contain certain negative—but sourced—information. I was able to find better sourcing for the claims, which made the pro-inclusion editors happy, and left the anti-inclusion people satisfied that at least it wasn't solely sourced to tabloids.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    After my success with Donald Bren, I tried to do similar mediation at David Ferguson (impresario). Sadly, that's where I ran into one SPA editor who, given a choice between consensus and ownership, always chose the latter. After some stress, I realized that in general, it's not always possible to make everyone happy, and that in particular, I'm not happy dealing with certain levels of drama. I decided to walk away and focus on wikignoming, which is what I really enjoy doing.

[edit] Realist2

Realist2 (talk · contribs) Hi folks, I just wanted some feedback on how I'm doing. — R2 15:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Realist, as of late you are doing fine on Wikipedia. I noticed your contributions and saw that you edit many articles regularly. I, however, recommend that you edit other areas of Wikipedia, not just articles, such as WP:XFD or even here at WP:ER. In the future, when in a conflict, remain civil and (like you stated) seek help from other editors, or sometimes its best to just walk away from a conflict. Best, --₮RUCӨ 19:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The blocks from a year ago a little disappointing, but they are from a year ago. By contrast, you have lots of nice stuff on your userpage with regards to adopting and thereby helping out inexperienced editors as well as with GA/FA class articles. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • How the hell are you not an admin yet? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I withdrew on about 80% support, off Wiki stuff, long story. I'm quite happy now, I really don't need the tolls that much. — R2 13:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Julian is right though, you should get the mop sooner or later anyway. No need is not a good reason not to, you might be able to do some good with it and every bit counts ;-) SoWhy 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

Getting Michael Jackson to FA was pleasing, but highly stressful. It's where I got all my policy knowledge, writing and rewriting it as I discovered more and more.

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

Get into loads of conflicts, it comes with the territory. Usually I just seek the input of other sane editors, things then get fixed.

Any other comments?

I want this to stay open a little longer, so adding a new section to stop it archiving. — R2 04:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're a great editor. I'm more than willing to look past your past blocks, but I know that Wikipedians have a way of holding things against others. You have been one of the most prolific editors I have encountered and I applaud you for your work. Please keep it up. Orane (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm also pleased at how great an editor you've become: you're polite, helpful, reasonable, a hard-worker, and are a huge contributor of content. You are good in dealing with BLP issues and disputes (especially on Lady Gaga), and from my observations of your behavior and work these last few months, I believe that your past problems are gone: you are truly one of our best editors. Please continue the excellent work you do, and please consider running for adminship again at some stage: I think you'll be a fine administrator. Acalamari 16:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_review"
Personal tools