Wikipedia:Editor review/Fyre2387

User:Fyre2387
I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now, and I've been involved more and more as of late. I've recently begun to consider adminship, largely since I started doing newpage patrol. Between my NP patrol work (I tag many inappropriate pages for speedy deletion) and anti-vandal work, I just think the tools would come in handy. Anyway, I know many of the editors at RfA would want a little more experience than I have, but I thought I'd benefit from a review, both to improve shortfalls now and to help towards an eventual run at adminship. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 

Hi Fyre2387. I think you're doing well in some areas, but I did identify some areas I think you can improve in. You have a good number of talk edits. I thought some of your talk and user talk edits could have been more friendly, though I found none that I thought were horrible. It looks like you're in a bit of a conflict over use of the terminology "master" at Zuko. You are discussing it on the talk page, so that's good. I'm not sure this kind of thing is the best way to handle it, maybe you could seek to bring in other opinions, rather than reverting yourself more than once. Granted, i didn't have that thorough of a look at this, so I could be missing something. Some of your edit summaries in that conflict are less than civil, which I do think is a big problem. You appear to be in a revert conflict with User:GreenFlame17 (though you do appear to have the talk page consensus on your side). Since this is a new user, I'd also be wary of violating WP:BITE. You apparently left a 3RR4 template as the first 3rr warning you gave. I'd suggest starting with a friendlier message first to avoid biting, or possibly even explaining in your own words about consensus, reverting, and the like. It doesn't look from the edit I looked at like anyone had tried that with this user. Maybe discussing it with him/her in a friendly manner could have prevented the reverting conflict that went on.
 * I think you are a good vandal fighter and you have 1400+ edits. I think you would be a good admin. --Natl1 22:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Review by delldot:

You have a fair number of project and wiki talk edits, many from the wikiproject you're involved in. In an RFA folks are likely to want to see a higher level of participation here. You do some vandalism reverting, and you leave appropriate, substed user warnings; good job. Not including deleted edits, you only have around 1600 edits, maybe not enough for a successful RFA (most folks like to see at least 2000, some insist on at least 5000). Also, you've only been active since July, and i think your intuition is correct that that may not be long enough for some folks in an RFA. Good use of edit summaries, both in consistency and helpfulness of the summaries themselves. You participate in prod patrol, which is great. Your largest hurdle to an RFA will probably be the civility problems and the reverting conflict I've discussed here. I'd suggest making an appology and turning over a new leaf, so that folks in a future RFA can clearly see that you've changed that behavior. If it's brought up, you can say "yes, but I saw the error of my ways and haven't done anything like that since _". Let me know if you want to discuss anything further. delldot | talk 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Answer-I tend more towards janitorial work, so I don't really have a long list of articles I've written a lot for. Most of my long-term work, though, is on the various articles related to Avatar: The Last Airbender. I'm a member of the WikiProject on the subject, and I do a lot of cleaning on them. I have written parts here and there on those articles, and I initially created and laid the framework for the (admittedly somewhat modest) article "Ba Sing Se". I also have tagged many, many pages for speedy deletion during NP patrol that were later deleted, and I truly believe that's important work.
 * 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?
 * Answer-Both the anti-vandal and NP patrol work I do does sometimes mean other editors become irritated with me, when I do things like remove an unsourced note or nominated a page they made for deletion. Most of the real "conflicts" I've been involved in deal with what could and could not be used as sources. When that happens, I try to explain to other editors why something isn't reliable as a source and point them at the relevant polices and guidelines, but I do find that sometimes reverts and simply necessary to keep unsourced or poorly source info off the encyclopedia.
 * Answer-Both the anti-vandal and NP patrol work I do does sometimes mean other editors become irritated with me, when I do things like remove an unsourced note or nominated a page they made for deletion. Most of the real "conflicts" I've been involved in deal with what could and could not be used as sources. When that happens, I try to explain to other editors why something isn't reliable as a source and point them at the relevant polices and guidelines, but I do find that sometimes reverts and simply necessary to keep unsourced or poorly source info off the encyclopedia.