Wikipedia:Editor review/Ju66l3r

Ju66l3r
I have steadily worked to improve Wikipedia for about 6 months and feel a review might help sway my decision to seek Adminship or not. I have tried to experience a bit of everything involved in improving the project. Please take some time to let me know how I've been doing. Thanks. ju66l3r 19:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

First, I would like to state my belief (and apparently, as has been voiced on the talk page of this project) that too many people come here with the desire to be admins. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be an admin, nothing at all- but I would ask you to think, why do you want to be an admin? Do you really need the tools? Do you really want to slog through backlogs and sort stuff? Most tasks on Wikipedia can be done as a regular user; are you really lacking? I simply ask first off because many see adminship as a sort of goal for the sake of having more power, not using it. I suppose some come in with the desire to be like forum admins, but that's not what wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about editing. I'm not blaming you for anything: god knows Wikipedia almost encourages it by keeping edit counts of successful admin candidates and the like. But I just hope that you aren't on WP:space just because you think you need more edits in that category.

As a added note, if you'll look through RfAs, you'll notice that a determinant in getting "the mop", as its called, is being nominated by someone else. That means another user has seen that you are not only a good user, but you have the integrity, the potential, and the need for admin tools. That carries a lot of wait with editors adding in input on you, and I encourage you to think about that.

If I've at all typecast you, I'm sorry... But anyway, about you. You certainly have been busy these past few months, and you appear to have contributed to a few articles with substantial edits; those earn kudos with me. You appear to be vocal about discussing change and talking with users: also good. I see no major grievances aired by your fellows looking through your talk page; also good. Overall, you're helping out a lot, and I and Wikipedia at a whole are very glad for your help. If you really were seeking adminship, I would suggest trying to get an article up to GA or FA, I don't see that you have done something like that, I might not be looking hard enough. All in all, I consider you a dedicated editor, and certainly a strong candidate should you choose to go up for an RfA- I just don't want to see another RfA when the editor is good, but his motives aren't. I hope you understand what I'm saying (and good luck on your PhD). Dåvid ƒuchs (talk &bull; contribs) 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Edit: Ah, you do have at least one GA under your belt- I missed it when looking through your top contributed articles. My mistake. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk &bull; contribs) 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Response: Thank you for your thoughtful review and comments.  I can assure you that if I choose to accept a nomination for Adminship it would not be out of status or power, but because I would want to make a difference in ways that only those with the Admin flag can (i.e., dealing with backlogs).  I have drank from the "firehose of crap" often (Special:New Pages...and my edit count does not reflect the hundreds of articles that have been speedied by my efforts) and frequently see truely vandalistic pages that I marked for deletion sitting for hours before action was taken.  While I will always continue to spend my time improving the encyclopedia, I also enjoy variety and believe that I would make good use of tools given to me by the community in order to help the encyclopedia in new and interesting ways as well as those everyone has at their disposal.  I doubt I would ever nominate myself for RfA but if the time came that I had to decide, I'd like to be certain that acceptance would not be embarrassing to me (or the nominator), even if it would not be deterring to my continued work here.  Thus, I figured an Editor Review at 6 months or so would be a good idea.  No offense taken to your comments.  I can understand how sorting out those that don't quite accept the ideals behind WP:WAIN from others is worth the effort up-front than at time of RfA.  To answer one specific concern, I have not made a single edit in Wikipedia (including WP:space) for edit count, or to bolster a statistic, or to justify my efforts.  If I do come up for an RfA, I hope it will be clear that my motives are good and that I'm just looking to improve the site.  By the by, my PhD is almost finished.  I have passed the final oral examination but need to complete (ironically) some editing to the dissertation and get signatures to complete the process.  ju66l3r 04:58, 18 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?
 * I created and improved The Soxaholix article until it reached GA status. This was my first created article after working on improving established articles and vandalism watching.  The fact that the peer review went so well and GA approval was only held for fair-use explanations on the images made me pleased to have met the criteria for writing a good article.  I am also particularly happy with my work on the National Organization of Short Statured Adults article.  When I first began editing it, it was rife with controversy and some editors were clearly very personally involved in the subject.  The article was even killed by a copyvio claim and I resurrected it by essentially starting from scratch and working with both sides of the controversy to create an article that nearly everyone could agree that it contained a neutral point of view.
 * 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?
 * It was recently insinuated that I was operating with an anti-Semitic/anti-Israel bias. This distressed me a bit and after crafting a response to prove my good faith and innocence, I found the same note copied and placed after multiple edits that I had made.  My initial response on WP:AN/I was done hastily and reading it back afterwards gave me pause to reconsider my comments.  I redacted a "final jab" and have decided to continue working as I know I was doing correctly to apply the guidelines of Wikipedia and do my best to avoid escalating and/or re-encountering the same user that thought my edits in bad faith.  I have sometimes stepped into low-level conflicts with the intent of helping to mediate as an uninvolved third-party.  So, I will try to approach even those times when I am personally involved with that same third-party mindset to avoid taking anything personally which frequently gives rise to losing one's cool.
 * It was recently insinuated that I was operating with an anti-Semitic/anti-Israel bias. This distressed me a bit and after crafting a response to prove my good faith and innocence, I found the same note copied and placed after multiple edits that I had made.  My initial response on WP:AN/I was done hastily and reading it back afterwards gave me pause to reconsider my comments.  I redacted a "final jab" and have decided to continue working as I know I was doing correctly to apply the guidelines of Wikipedia and do my best to avoid escalating and/or re-encountering the same user that thought my edits in bad faith.  I have sometimes stepped into low-level conflicts with the intent of helping to mediate as an uninvolved third-party.  So, I will try to approach even those times when I am personally involved with that same third-party mindset to avoid taking anything personally which frequently gives rise to losing one's cool.