Wikipedia:Editor review/Electriccatfish2

Electriccatfish2
STATEMENT: Hi! I'm Electriccatfish2, and I have been editing Wikipedia for over a year now and currently have Rollback rights. I mainly am a Recent Changes and New Pages Patroller, plus I am a CVUA Instructor. I am looking to make my RFA sometime at the end of the Summer. Please offer your opinions and constructive criticism on me so that I can correct it in the next couple of months before my RFA. Thank You! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions are mainly anti-vandalism and New Pages patrolling. I also occasionally edit articles about airports, but I aminly do anti-vandalism work and New Page patrolling.
 * 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.
 * Yes, I have been in editing disputes, mainly among Vandalism Warnings. If I made a mistake, I apologize to the user and the dispute usually ends. With users whom I have clearly acted appropriately, I try to nicely explain their mistake. This almost always fixes the problem. I have occasionally dealt with users who have attacked me by creating libelous articles about me or by posting messages containing obscenities on my user talk page. I usually report these users to ANI, and they are almost always blocked. I always try to end disputes by explaining things, not by biting users.
 * Yes, I have been in editing disputes, mainly among Vandalism Warnings. If I made a mistake, I apologize to the user and the dispute usually ends. With users whom I have clearly acted appropriately, I try to nicely explain their mistake. This almost always fixes the problem. I have occasionally dealt with users who have attacked me by creating libelous articles about me or by posting messages containing obscenities on my user talk page. I usually report these users to ANI, and they are almost always blocked. I always try to end disputes by explaining things, not by biting users.

 Reviews 
 * Hi. I haven't had very much experience working with Electriccatfish2, but he/she was very thorough and polite in dealing with an editor posting multiple spam links to Mountain biking‎ and other articles.  It took a bit of effort, and Electriccatfish2 did a nice job.  Thanks!  Ebikeguy (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Though i only met him a few days ago, Electriccatfish2 charms with his good will and helpful personality. He is very compromised with working against vandalism and shows an intense energy when expressing others his vision. I find nothing to be fixed on his behavior, and I consider he could be a model for many users here on Wikipedia. — Hahc21 [ TALK ] [ CONTRIBS  ] 23:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ran into you at AfD; granted the article was barely stitched together as an interim electee, and still needs work, but you've misinterpreted WP:Politician, or haven't explained why you disagree. If your position hasn't changed, you should explain it; if it has, you could withdraw and request closure. I've reviewed your 500 edits prior to that, and the vandal-fighting seems solid, if a tad rushed. A personal note might make the difference between a new editor or a new longterm crusader. Your other AfD votes seem simplistic yes/no endorsements without explanation (how does it meet WP:N?), and I would recommend reading a few days worth. Dru of Id (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your constructive criticism, I will keep this in mind and reread WP: NOTABILITY. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've noticed your username recently. I tend to concur with Dru of Id. It's seems your heart is in the right place, but I sense a certain amount of haste in your editing. This edit was a little out of process for the discussion that was taking place at WT:UTM. I think the best advice I could give you is "measure twice, cut once". As far as RfA goes, I would recommend holding off a bit longer than the end of the summer. RfA is a snake pit at the best of times, where any and all editing mistakes will be dragged up and scrutinized. I would counsel against any editor going there without six months of almost flawless editing under their belt. Pol430 talk to me  15:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I don't think that edit was inappropriate. I was actually the one who came up with the idea for it and after it was mentioned to cut down the template, I decided to cut it down. I have decided, along with other editor's recommendations, to try it out at the end of the Summer, and that is unlikely to change. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My encounters with Electriccatfish2 have been good. Overall they are a helpful user who has on various occasions over the last week given me advice and help. They also recognised my anti-vandalsim efforts with a barnstar (thanks!) and also has got me an instructor to train me on wikipedia. You're great! FishingKing, fighting to keep Wikipedia factual. (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Write some articles.64.134.168.97 (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Good luck in your RfA plans. There is plenty you can do to prepare, if you have the time. Since your AfD record will be reviewed in your upcoming RfA, keep the results of the Afdstats program in mind. Editors are likely to review most carefully the cases where your opinion differed from the ultimate AfD result. It seems you've only voted in 41 AfDs so far. I suggest trying to participate in at least 100 before running for adminship, and be sure that your votes show careful reasoning. If you can point to some cases where you improved a nominated article enough to save it from deletion, that would be influential. In a quick look I did not see any improper nominations for speedy deletion. You have made a large number of Twinkle edits such as vandal reversions, which is good, but it makes it tedious to scan through your contributions looking for any content work.  It will be helpful if you can show us a list of articles to which you've actually added content. It is possible that some RfA participants may be looking for at least 1,000 non-automated edits to article space by admin candidates. Even small-scale fixing (such as spelling or grammar) would be worth seeing. Adding sources (to articles that need them) is especially good. Since you have less than 150 total edits prior to May 1, 2012 the reviewers may be considering May 1 to be the start of your editing history for most practical purposes. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note these are general, objective views. Not all of them will necessarily reflect my personal opinions nor this editor's specific habits: Although I think you are not yet ready for RfA, any time is a good one to get into the right approach and habits. Because RfA is hell-week, as you'll see by reading a selection. Prepare for that scrutiny now. So, fairly or not, that scrutiny includes your userpage. It'll be the first place editors go when your nom is in and even innocent userboxes may work against you for that overall first-impression: supporting what appears to be an entire division of baseball teams, favourite food lists, details about every on-the-job certificate/competency you've got. Its not that you do or have these things, its having numerous userboxes about them. From the years of RfAs I've seen, my advice would be to get rid of anything that looks social-networky, excessively detailed, and has no direct relevance to your wikipedia editing. So if you contribute regularly to articles and discussions on Slovakian realist cinema, then one or two userboxes indicating that is perfectly fine: it tells other editors about you on Wikipedia. The biggest danger with userboxes are those that mention support for religious policy, political beliefs, socio-cultural controversies etc. These invariably lead to questions being raised about a potential admin's awareness of and ability to maintain neutrality at controversial areas. Also consider your talkpage activities. Communication and teamwork is vital of course, but there are always those wailing about, for eg, their treatment at the hands of admins, who consider themselves entitled to support and agreement from everyone they've recently exchanged a couple of chatty comments with. Alas, "vandal-fighting" attracts a small but consistent incoming of the immature, irresponsible and self-aggrandising in a not-dissimilar way to the vandalism and trollery itself! They see Wikipedia as the ultimate adult-approved, real-world MMPORG, and time spent in the arena is also time spent having to deal with them. And that leads onto my final point: content is increasingly becoming a desirable factor at RfA but experience in a wide range of areas is essential. Some candidates do little outside their preferred area, then apply as soon as they reach what they or their cohorts consider to be a good number of edits ("manual" or not). Some may try to get round this the week before, by joining in a few AFDs or FPs or the like, for example. Some, realising their lack of content work may be a problem, will spend effort on one article, nursing in through GA etc. However, anything that smacks of "doing it for the RfA" - like it was a ticky-box on the "what do they want" list - will be duly noted. If you look at RfAs that failed with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, you'll see some editors refer to pages with their specific criteria listed. As with the RFAs themselves, and the relevant wiki-essays and guidelines, reading these will be most informative. Adminship is really WP:NOBIGDEAL, it's cleaning up after wikipuppies widdle on the floor, not a promotion. Those who begin here with that intent rarely succeed - or stick around. Just enjoy your editing here and see how it goes. All the best, Plutonium27 (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You have been very polite in all of your dealings with me so far. I would second the advice of the IP above. Writing some articles will deepen your understanding of Wikipedia and give you valuable experience in content creation. Besides, the articles are really the most important part of Wikipedia, anyway. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Electriccatfish2 has been very pleasant to deal with in my encounters I have had with him. He is very polite when it comes to welcoming new users, as well as more seasoned users, as shown by the barnstar and welcome he gave me on my talk page. It wouldn't surprise me one iota if he is nominated for admin here. He's only been here for a year, but already he seems to know his stuff, and would also be a great mentor. Thebestofall007 (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)