Wikipedia:Editor review/Alpha Quadrant 2

Alpha Quadrant 2
I created an account in April 2010. I am thinking about running for adminship within the next six months and I would like other user's opinions on my editing before making a final decision. Alpha Quadrant   talk    03:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I primarily work at WikiProject Articles for Creation, were I review new user's submissions, provide feedback, and help them on Wikipedia, but also in the Wikipedia IRC help channel. In addition to my work on the AfC backlog I also add citation information to articles in Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup as well as finding URL archives to dead links. I also reorganize article sections to comply to the MoS and close requested move debates. The best article I have written is probably Schoep's Ice Cream, though I had made an attempt to get Dominion War to GA status, but the nomination failed. In the future I plan to try again. I occasionally work at WP:MEDCAB and WP:3O, most recently I mediated a dispute on Talk:Glenn Beck.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * No, since my last editor review I haven't had any content disputes with other editors. The only major controversy I have been involved in was when I closed a heated moved debate, as the editors felt that it should have been closed by an administrator.(ANI thread: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive673)
 * No, since my last editor review I haven't had any content disputes with other editors. The only major controversy I have been involved in was when I closed a heated moved debate, as the editors felt that it should have been closed by an administrator.(ANI thread: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive673)

 Reviews 
 * I am kind of Bias on this user, because of personal experience with him, but, I can say one thing for sure. This user defenatily knows what he is doing and always has a positive attitude. I would like to see some work however in the more article namespace, not just at AfC. I however feel that you are very skilled in settling disputes which makes a very good sysop one day. Please don't consider this a formal review since I am bias.  JoeGazz  ▲ 23:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Review by 
 * Alright! I'm finished now!
 * Antivandalism : As you don't seem to be much into this area, I'm going to mostly ignore it. However, most of your AIV and UAA reports look just fine. (I didn't find any bad ones, but I'm not going to review back to May of 2010!)
 * Namespaces : You have great contributions to the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces, which show policy knowledge. Your edits are well-distributed, which is expected of an admin candidate, and your talk-space edits show that you can collaborate with others. You don't waste time in userspace, which is also great!
 * Article contributions : Overall, your contributions seem to be mostly in the realm of minor tweaks and fixes, which are good. However, most people at RFA want to see the creation of referenced content&mdash;even just one good article goes a long way. I would thus recommend creating a couple DYKs or a GA. A GA is easy to create, and I would be happy to assist you if you need help.
 * Policy : Your policy knowledge is one of the best I have ever seen; much better than mine. Reading up on the admin's reading list would probably help you, especially with regards to WP:DEL. Just ensure you have read WP:BLOCK, WP:REVDEL, and WP:PROTECT before RFA. WP:HISTMERGE and WP:MOVE will be good policies for what you intend on doing with the toolbox.
 * Other comments : I reviewed your efforts in the mediation cabal, and have found them to be relatively good. You seemed to do a decent job on Talk:Glenn Beck. However, I would not recommend trying to be a WP:DR admin.
 * Overall : You seem to be a very good editor who is almost ready for adminship. I would recommend writing some articles, as many editors are looking for well-referenced content contributions. Your AFC contributions are very good, and display an excellent knowledge of notability and reliable sources, which I have found to be sadly lacking in many people. Your AFD !votes and comments also display a knowledge of the various notability policies. Good luck when you do run!
 * Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review. (I am almost ready to post my review of you.) Between September 2010 and October 2010 I decided to use my alternate account for semi-automated tools, as it makes it easier for me to go back and review edits made with them. I don't do much work in fighting bulk vandalism, but that is where some of the newer reverts would be. Again, thanks for the review. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant    talk    14:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Egads, I see your name everywhere regarding Articles for Creation. That is a depressing and hard job, but one of the most unappreciated jobs.  I don't know your work enough to write a review, but I want to thank you for the great job you are doing in AfC. Bgwhite (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you doing excellent work in the article review areas, countervandalism and overall supporting the project; however, you may want to still improve on the actual article creation before running for adminship. Most admins are expected to have tried to create more than one article in order to be eligible to an admin (or ensuring that their nomination has a chance at passing). TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 00:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about your lack of understanding of some of our basic policies where judgement is concerned. Submitting an SPI with evidence is hardly a personal attack or a violation of WP:CIVIL.  Nor is apologizing for not having done so sooner.   I would encourage you to try to understand situations more thoroughly before you make accusations like that.  You seem like a usually solid editor who is generally responsible otherwise. Toddst1 (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)