Wikipedia:Editor review/Fæ (3)

Fæ (3)
It has been nearly 20,000 edits since my last review (see 1 and 2) and I think it might be a good time for another review with a possible RfA in mind to help with OTRS work. Fæ (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 Questions

 What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * ''Since my last review I have been absorbed with helping users via OTRS (much of which is invisible to Wikipedia but some can be seen on my Commons account). My OTRS work is helped by using iMacro scripts to quickly provide OTRS templates based on the ticket reference and link me to associated file matches and logs on Wikipedia and Commons for filenames listed in emails received at permissions-en. Some examples of my OTRS work include helping with requests at OTRS/Noticeboard, getting generic permission for photos from the official Iowa House of Representatives website and running some specific background checks for doubtful emails using IP and domain checks and well as the obvious writing back to ask for verification (many of which nicely verify the request).
 * ''I have been making good use of IGLOO for vandal fighting (primarily choosing IGLOO as I can run it natively on my MacMini).
 * ''I still do new User welcoming using my own templates and have refined my activities in dealing with ongoing unsourced alumni list problems by creating the straight-forward Alumni notice. I have been along to a few real-world WikiMedia events (see my user page) and have made increasing use of IRC to get a quick independent viewpoint, share ideas and help some of the users that appear at
 * ''Oh, and I recently created a summary for Hoxne Hoard which rather pleasingly resulted in it appearing on the Wikipedia main page as today's featured article with the article receiving 57,000+ hits in one day.

 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.
 * ''I have consciously avoided conflict in the last few months, feeling that I would rather walk away than be accused of flogging a dead horse or just go around in circles. It should be noted that my user page is protected as a consequence of vandalism resulting from my vandal-fighting work and rather than being stressed, I find it more amusing that a some vandals have resorted to abuse, such as calling me a 'murderer' or 'racist' without actually knowing anything about me. Recent examples of walking away are at (though they are rather mild in my opinion):

''Talk:Urban chickens; where I would prefer the title to become 'Urban chicken rearing' to avoid geographic bias ''Talk:Israel Shamir where I have been fairly neutral, the debate has been extensive and the handful of persistent parties entrenched and so I have taken the page off my watch list for the time being ''Talk:Linda Norgrove where there were debates about verifiability and layout where I made my case, discussed it and walked away when it was apparent that some otherwise experienced editors were not getting the point. ''Talk:Adnan Oktar currently helping out after being requested to step in after several days of non-neutral editing. I have proposed a significant roll-back and re-start, though as I am a neutral party I am not expecting to be at the heart of disagreements. 

 Reviews 

I'll focus this review on the "with a view to RfA" part because the community could use you as an administrator. I think your 2nd review was affected by a bit of, well, you know what I mean.

I think you are ready for an RfA now. Major plusses for RfA !voters are:
 * OTRS work: shows you can be trusted with permissions.
 * Being involved in the collaboration of Hoxne Hoard. Not only is having an FA under your belt a clear demonstration that you understand content policies, but the fact that it was part of a large collaboration shows your abilities to work constructively with other editors. Your article creations look good even if some are a bit stubby.
 * Experience in AfD looks good: eg bold but correct non-admin closes (Articles for deletion/Macedonian language). Even when on the "losing" side (Articles for deletion/Elfwood (2nd nomination)) your arguments are reasonable. You have put some articles up at AfD that have been kept, but that happens to everyone. It's clear that you don't come to AfD with any ideological bent.
 * Speedy deletion tagging looks very good. I could only find one recent dodgy-looking one (Fun88), and another admin obviously agreed with you there. CAT:CSD gets backlogged and needs more admins.
 * The way that you respond to mistakes (User talk:Fæ/2010) and complaints (User talk:Fæ/2010) looks very good.

The only thing I can think of that might stand in your way is that you've only been active for nine months. I don't think this should stop you if you feel you are ready. I passed with nine months of active editing - the key point is what you've done in the nine months and what you have done has been excellent. But RfA is a tough week even if you pass easily, you really need to be confident that (a) you're ready for the job and (b) you can handle the week.

The one thing I can't really comment on is your OTRS work. I don't have access to OTRS.

Having spent some time now looking through your history and contribs, and having seen you around in the past in places like CAT:CSD, I'd be happy to nominate you for RfA, co-nom you, or give you a firm early support. I'm also happy if you'd like to contact me off-wiki if you have any questions you don't want to raise on-wiki. I note for example that you've never !voted at an RfA, which in my view is a good thing but you might have some questions. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)