Wikipedia:Editor review/Juliancolton 4

Juliancolton
Hi, I'm Juliancolton. I've been editing Wikipedia for over two years now, and I was promoted to sysop in September 2008. I seem to be a fairly well-known editor on this project and others. I have made around 120,000 edits, contributed to around 25 featured articles, and committed thousands of logged actions. In my time here I've had a couple unsuccessful requests for bureaucratship, and I've since decided that I will not be standing again. My last review of this sort was well over a year ago, so I figured now's a good time to submit a new one. My purpose on this page is not to receive ego-inflating compliments, but rather ask for any honest advice on my editing habits. Cheers, Juliancolton (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My contributions to the project are, I feel, best described as "widespread". I frequently use tools such as Huggle, a piece of anti-vandalism software, and AWB, a semi-automated program used to edit hundreds or thousands of pages in rapid succession. However, I also spent quite a bit of time writing articles and trying to contribute valuable idea and information to community discussions. I consider WP:WPTC my "home" on en.wiki, but I rarely stay put in one area for more than a few hours.
 * 1) Have you been in any disputes 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?
 * Yes. I have gotten into unfortunate disputes—though generally of a minor nature—with fellow editors, some of which I regret for not handling well or preforming unsatisfactorily. I readily admit to taking Wikipedia too seriously at times, and I've been making an effort as of late to make up for past grudges and quarrels.
 * Yes. I have gotten into unfortunate disputes—though generally of a minor nature—with fellow editors, some of which I regret for not handling well or preforming unsatisfactorily. I readily admit to taking Wikipedia too seriously at times, and I've been making an effort as of late to make up for past grudges and quarrels.

 Reviews 


 * Hi Julian. 120,000 edits and 25 FAs?! That's very impressive. Let me stalk your contribs and will provide more details shortly ... I think you do fantastic work- a wide range of tasks here: copyediting, comments, and overall raising the sense of good morale here, such as your post on the Crat noticeboard (which I didn't even know existed until now!) Keep doing what you do and don't let some past problems or some misfortunes get in the way of your current work. _ Tommy2010  [message] 19:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Review by Sphilbrick


 * I looked at the last dozen or so rights you granted. All looked fine (there was one I didn't understand, so asked at your talk page)
 * I can't check your edit summary usage (too many edits) but a manual review of your last 250 edits confirms 100% edit summary, and edit summaries that are not perfunctory, but explanatory in most cases
 * With over 500 RfA contributions, I'm obviously pleased with the volume of response.
 * I reviewed a half-dozen RfA !votes (ones where we both participated). While we reached differing conclusions in half, I saw clueful, not just perfunctory reasoning, and none I thought were offbase
 * I only found one Afd where we overlapped, and although we reached different conclusions, my position is (at present) a minority position, so I'm fine with the conclusion
 * One challenge in reviewing someone with so many edits is that the tool to identify top-edited articles doesn't work
 * I reviewed the edits to one FA (Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season), and found good edits, good edit summaries, and a fine resulting article.
 * I reviewed some contributions to WT. Generally helpful and clueful. If I had to pick on one thing, the edit summaries to WT tend to be cryptic, e.g. "cmt"
 * I reviewed a few user talk page comments—most looked fine, but I'm running out of steam. Obviously, Juliancolton is one of the more prolific editors, and not the type normally asking for a review. I hoped I could find something that would give me a clue why the request, but I didn't find it. Sorry to hear you are winding down; hope it is just a temporary lull (and I note your "winding down" is still in the top few per cent of edits per day).-- SPhilbrick  T  21:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Tommy and Sphil, thanks for the responses. I'll try to make my edit summaries a bit more descriptive where possible. As for why I'm requesting a review, I try to be as open and welcoming to constructive criticism as possible, so every year or so I'm making a point of listing an editor review. (Although I can't say I came up with that idea.) Juliancolton (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)