Wikipedia:Editor review/Aaron

User:Aaron
I'm seriously considering making a run for adminship soon, so I'm looking for a full-blown "worth it or not" WP:RFA-style review. I've been a Wikipedian since 2002, but I was pretty much just a lurker until the last year or so. I've got 2900 edits at this point, with (I think) a good spread across various namespaces. As I've spent more time here, I've discovered that I'm a process junkie with a sick love of AfDs, POV patrolling, WP:AN and intermediate WikiGnoming, so obviously the admin tools would be quite useful to me; I'm not looking for the sysop bit as a medal. But I've never done a whole lot of the "community" thing around here - no hanging out on IRC or the mailing lists or any of that - so I definitely could use some advice as to where I stand. Thanks, --Aaron 05:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * I've seen you around at RfA and I really like your positive attitude and your sense of humor. You seem to be a great, active editor (nearly 3,000 edits), many of them in the field of the U.S. Government. You want to run for adminship? why the hell not? ;-) - Mike | Talk 22:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello there, Aaron. Since you are asking for a RFA, this will be a straightforward review. Note that since I manually examine your contributions, some numbers may be slightly off.
 * I see almost 1,700 contributions in the Wikipedia namespace, that is over 50% of your contributions. Over 50% of those are in AFDs, with 5% in TFDs and 2% in CFDs. Although I am not sure people would like an admin nominating for deletion (or speedy deleting, for that matter) an article with a comment like the one you did at Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters missing an appendage, you have a very solid experience in deletion discussions.
 * As for vandalism, I see very few reports at AIV.
 * 220 edits in user talk pages is just a 7%, which can be considered very low for a future administrator (they are expected to spend time warning, explaining and answering questions from people about why their articles were deleted). Around 210 edits in article talks is also low. Personally, I would not support (but neither oppose) an editor with less than 20% of talk edits, however you would be an exception as XFDs involve a lot of interaction with other users.
 * Now, as you said in your Q1, the lack of an article to point out may bring some negative opinions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and thus everyone, including admins, are expected to know how to write an article, how to polish it, and convert it at least in a good article. While 1FA is too much for my taste, 1GA is not.
 * I see you warn some people, and a few reports at AIV. However, they appear not to be that many. Supposing you warn every user when using popups to revert, that makes less than 100 warns.
 * So, you use WikiDiscussion Manager? Hmm... I remember a discussion about it, whether it was useful or not, and if it should be deleted. Personally, it is a way of finding which discussions have already a good consensus, and piling on. However, I also believe people should program in C instead of Visual Basic, that IDEs are evil if you are using them to learn, and that the wheel needs to be reinvented every other week to not forget why it was invented in the first place, so you can just skip this point.
 * I don't see fair use rationales for Image:Associated Press favicon.png or Image:73 Front Cover September 2003.jpg. I believe administrator should be the example for others, including when uploading fair use images.
 * Now, suppossing you present yourself to a RFA, I believe you have a very good chance of a successful one if you state that you want to close AFD, work with the speedy deletions backlogs, and generally maintenance sysop chores. Do you think you are experienced enough to handle vandalism (blocking vandals reported at AIV, in example)? It is already 2:30 AM, so I will stop here. If you answer my question, I will take my time to review your reverts and warns later to see whether you apply them fairly, and maybe check some more AFDs for more information about your judgement in them. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 05:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My review is in two parts:
 * As an editor: I may disagree with you a lot... especially with AfDs, but I think you're a good editor. I have a huge ammount of respect for the work you do getting rid of vandalism and fixing POV issues.  And I think it's great that you're helping some of the newbies by participating in Articles for Creation.  Also, I like that you insert humor into discussions sometimes (I still chuckle when I think of your "Just look at it!" AfD nom).  My only complaint about you as an editor is your support of using WP:C&E in AfD discussions, but I realize that has more to do with me disliking that proposed guideline.
 * As a potential admin: I would have concerns if you became an admin. Those concerns largely deal with AfDs and other deletion-related things.  I'm worried that, once you get an admin's delete button, you might see several articles as deletion-worthy without giving us all a chance to get a consensus.  I've seen you make reference to being a deletionist in places.  While holding that opinion is perfectly fine, I wonder how that will translate into participation in deletion activities as an admin.  That's my concern.
 * That said, I might not vote to oppose you becoming an admin if you did go up for RfA. Like I said, I think you're a generally good editor.  I do agree with Rey that it would be nice to see more work on articles from you, but I'm certainly not one of those people who requires a Featured Article from admin candidates.  I hope I have you some helpful comments. - Lex 04:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's Tool (Firefox only).

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I, of course, find all my edits pleasing, heh heh. But if you're one of those 1FA types, I'm probably not your guy. I'm a Wikinibbler, a classic ADD sort of editor; my edits are all over the place. I get intrigued by a certain article, or policy discussion, and am all over it, then a day or so later it's on to something else. But if absolutely pressed to name something, I'd probably say my work doing some of the initial piecing together of the puzzle of edits made by all the various IP addresses during the Congressional Staff editing scandal, and my POV/vandalism patrolling, particularly on news media-related articles. Actually, what I'm most proud of is that, except for a single 3RR block in my early days (which itself was reverted by another admin), I've never found myself dragged into any dispute resolution process beyond hashing issues out on talk pages; not even a mere RFC or information mediation. Given the amount of day-to-day contentiousness we all deal with around here, I think that counts for something.
 * 1) 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?
 * Of course I've been in conflicts and been stressed; anyone who says otherwise has either only been an editor for a few hours or else doesn't do anything except going around correcting spelling errors. But I've learned the best thing to do in such situations is to blow off steam somewhere else. If you try to blow it off at the source of the conflict, all you're going to do is escalate it into something worse. It's far better to talk it out on a friendly editor's talk page (a third party opinion never hurts anyway), or just to walk away from the conflict entirely if you have to. After all, the article will still be there later when you've calmed down. (Or if it's an AfD, the issue will get settled without you.) Like I said above, I've never been in any sort of dispute mediation, so my system must be working pretty well.
 * 1) If you become an editor, how will you handle closing Articles for Deletion? - Lex 04:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)