Wikipedia:Editor review/Husond 2

User:Husond
I was recently offered an RfA nomination by an administrator. I am planning to accept and launch my RfA in a couple of weeks. However, I am feeling a bit uneasy now as I witness MER-C's RfA which is below 80% support. I really did not expect his current tally and that is making me rethink whether or not I might be apt to succeed. I would much appreciate to be addressed concerns about my forthcoming RfA and what could go wrong about it. Thank you. Hús ö  nd  16:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Holy crap! You've made more edits this month alone than I have made in over a year with Wikipedia :-D!! I've seen you around RfA, and based on the way that you conduct yourself there and your astronomically high edit count, I'm confident that you would certianly have a chance at passing an RfA. However, being that you've only been a serious contributor for two months, I'm sure that there will be some oppose votes on experience concerns. Remember, though, you don't need unanimous support to be granted adminship. I assure you that you would have my support. - Mike | Talk 22:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope this isn't some sort of conflict of interest considering you reviewed me recently... :-) But seriously, I had to let you know that I would surely support your future RFA unless you did something very bad between now and then, like vandalizing the small, innocent girl article.  I have seen you around while recent changes patrolling, and you also seem to be very civil and centered.  As Mike noted, some may oppose based on only about four months of experience, but I think your high edit count should largely counter-balance that.   Best of luck, Dar-Ape 02:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello there, Husond. Here is my review, hopefully you will find something useful inside.
 * Pretty good summary usage. They are usually descriptive, although I do hate "rv", "rvv" and other shortcuts, because we can't expect a new editor to know what those means. I suggest try to avoiding them, if only for their sake :-)
 * Well, I will have to agree with Mike1 and Dar-Ape. Requests for adminship/Standards is a good place to check for statistics, and you will notice that people with 4 or less months of contributions have a harder time achieving adminship. That does not mean it is impossible, it is just harder. I must point out that I suggested in his last editor review to wait until December, however he accepted his nomination this month and is going fairly well, so you may just want to dismiss this point :-)
 * Good amount of administrator-like tasks like vandal fighting and deletion discussions. Regarding your AFD participation, it is good to see you correct yourself like here, but as an administrator you will be measuring speedy deletions often, and you need to review the situation. However, that is just the exception that confirms the rule. I have checked several diffs, and they all seem to be well informed, although you mention Google a little too much. My problem with that is that new users willing to help may get the idea that a simple Google count is enough to make a veredict, which is pretty dangerous, especially with articles about foreign (as in non-english) themes. By the way, since you participate in a lot of AFD, you may help assessing the different AFDs discussions that have yet to be categorized.
 * While I would trust you with blocking vandals, speedy deletions and closing AFDs, you basically don't have experience in templates, categories and images for deletion, nor copyright problems or page protections. So, at least during the first weeks of adminship, you should consider how others handle those problems to get experience.
 * Administrators are also editors, so you should have some kind of knowledge about the different style guides and guidelines, not only policies. While some people request the candidate to have written a featured article, I don't think that is necessary. However, it is my belief that any editor must have at least one good article, as that proves his or her knowledge about the basics format and layout, content and verifiability issues. I don't think you would have problems by not being able to point to an article where you have contributed massively, but if you can correct that before nominating yourself, it would be pretty good.
 * As expected, an impressive amount of user talk edits, mostly warnings. Your amount of article talk edits is relatively low, just 4% of your total edits, but that is expectable as well as you are a wikignome. Having such AFD experience, it may counter an argument that you have little experience discussing against a group of editors though (contrary to individual discussions through user talk pages).
 * Overall, you are an excellent vandal fighter, suitable for most admin tasks. Remember that failing a RFA is not the end of your career at Wikipedia. On the contrary, it should be taken as another editor review. There is no difference between an adminstrator who was chosen in his first RFA and one who convinced everyone in his sixth. I am wondering one thing, though. Since you have been contributor for only 4 months, it is hard to say which your "average edit per month" is. 30, 675, 2777 and 2976. Personally, I think proportions are more important than exact numbers (as in, you have a lot of Wikipedia namespace edits but only a quarter of article edits) as that gives me an idea of how the editor spends his time around. Thus, I wonder whether you will continue at a high participation level (say, over 2000 edits per month), or will lower it to around 1000 per month. Of course, I don't expect you to tell me exact numbers :-) but if, in order to reach these 3000 edits in October you had to sleep 2 hours per day, then I will have to remind you that sleeping is necessary. And yes, I know I am not the best one to recommend people to sleep from time to time ;-) Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Consider running for Admin having you with the special buttons will only benifit wikipedia, I use RV and rvv in my edit summerys because I don't have vandal proof and whatnot if I tried typing the whole thing out by the time it was done writting the summary a bot will have already fixed the thing. -- Seadog Talk |undefined 03:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've noted on your talk page, please be sure to adopt a welcoming attitude towards anon IP's, as most are new users. Here you incorrectly warned me of an editing error, using a test1 template. While warning's aren't necessarily bad in and of themselves, in my own opinion — and my own RfA passed several months back with only one oppose vote, if that helps lend credibility — a welcome should always proceed a warning. When doing my own vandal patrols, if I came across an editing mistake that wasn't obvious, malicious vandalism, I would revert it and leave a welcome message rather than a warning template. Only after a user would return to making a number of mistakes, thereby showing that he or she didn't intend to learn how to use a wiki, would I start with any sort of warnings.


 * It may seem like a small thing to do, but it's the little things that add up to make users which win my votes when it comes to adminship. Try it out... you may be pleasantly surprised when you run across the occasional newbie who's grateful for the welcome and comes to you for assistance later. 66.139.12.121 06:02, 28 October 2006 (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?
 * I am not a remarkable article builder. I mostly create stubs, wikignome, and collaborate with Pages needing translation into English. The vast majority of my edits on the mainspace are due to countervandalism. I am happy though to have created Portal:Iceland, which I am planning to expand and eventually try to have it promoted to featured.
 * 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?
 * As I've stated on my first ER, I've created this account following a bitter dispute (which actually did not occur on the English Wikipedia). I maintain strict policies against conflictual behavior, uncivility and feeding the trolls. That plus politely adressing contentious users has effectively countered disputes so far. Nevertheless, I had a brush with a user who reverted an edit of mine (in a manner that I could not regard as good faith), and I also had rather painstaking discussions with Gene Nygaard as we have antagonistic positions about the usage of diacritics on Wikipedia. Apart from these, everything ran very smoothly.
 * As I've stated on my first ER, I've created this account following a bitter dispute (which actually did not occur on the English Wikipedia). I maintain strict policies against conflictual behavior, uncivility and feeding the trolls. That plus politely adressing contentious users has effectively countered disputes so far. Nevertheless, I had a brush with a user who reverted an edit of mine (in a manner that I could not regard as good faith), and I also had rather painstaking discussions with Gene Nygaard as we have antagonistic positions about the usage of diacritics on Wikipedia. Apart from these, everything ran very smoothly.