Wikipedia:Editor review/Mono (2)

iBen
I'm thinking about applying for adminship sometime this year, however, I would like some feedback to becoma a better editor. iBen (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * ''My favorite contributions are probably the articles I've written:
 * Doodle4Google
 * Google Chrome Extensions
 * Conversation threading
 * Google Sidewiki

A complete list can be found at #stuff.''
 * 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?
 * I've had several CSD nominations be declined, partly because I tag as WP:CSD, then user adds more content and other scenarios like that. Recently, I had a disagreement with User:Ironholds, see here.  Luckily, most of the time, it works out.  Another example of upset users not AGFing is User_talk:IBen/Archive_3.  All in all, I seem to have worked everything out but would like a higher success rate in the future!
 * I've had several CSD nominations be declined, partly because I tag as WP:CSD, then user adds more content and other scenarios like that. Recently, I had a disagreement with User:Ironholds, see here.  Luckily, most of the time, it works out.  Another example of upset users not AGFing is User_talk:IBen/Archive_3.  All in all, I seem to have worked everything out but would like a higher success rate in the future!

 Reviews 

Review by  Greetings, iBen! I've reviewed some of your contributions for this review, and have come to the conclusion that you are a courteous, enthusiastic editor with impressive technical skills and a real desire to improve the inner workings of the encyclopedia. You lack experience in some areas, particularly article writing and WP:CSD, but nothing that cannot be improved with some practice. You have been a steady contributor since you joined, and you are clearly a net gain to the project. In addition to your editorial contributions, I believe that if you follow through on your contemplated RFA down the line, that you would present a good candidate that could likely address all manner of obscure and technical backlogs. Below I have included some details about the areas that I reviewed. I hope you found this review to be helpful. It cannot hold a candle to the detail I was given in my own review, but I was lucky enough to be reviewed by a bot. I hope you will consider reviewing another editor in turn.--~TPW stands for (trade passing words?) or Transparent Proof of Writing 04:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Technical knowledge: You clearly have a lot of knowledge about how to spruce up a user page, far beyond anything I could do!  I think your page looks great, and I have no expertise to say more on the subject.  Okay . . . I find the bouncing WikiBall both weird and likable, but your talk page is a bit crowded - all the features near the top are bunched together (and I'm using Chrome, just so you know).
 * Community interaction: You get high marks here in my view.  The confrontations you link both could have been much, much worse if you had reacted differently.  You show evidence of maintaining a cool head and understanding the serious limitations placed on communicating in writing alone.  Having only been here a few months (and having accumulated more edits than I have in over three years), you're willing to lend a hand by adopting a new user.  That's great; hopefully your thick skin will wear off on your adoptees!  I also wish you the best of luck with your WikiProject, which seems to be off to a fine start.
 * CSD: It looks like most of your nominations are accepted, but of those which were declined it appears you could stand to brush up on the article criteria.  In cases like Jonathan Benjamin Gill, all it takes is a claim that the subject has notability - in that case, it must be deleted via WP:PROD or WP:AFD.  Cerqueira de Souza, which has a contested tag as of this writing, has been edited since you tagged it for A1, but I don't think it would be accepted under that criterion or A7 - the list of publications is both a context (the subject is a writer) and an assertion of notability.  Your talk page suggests that, particularly with criterion A7, you are confusing the assertion of notability with proving it.  If any claim is made, you're better off just starting out with a PROD.
 * Articles: You already know that your article space work isn't a big percentage of your overall edits, probably because you like to see how things work under the hood.  What you've done, though, seems like a great start in that direction.  I took a look at Google Sidewiki, Google Chrome Extensions, and Conversation threading, which you particularly mentioned as good work.  You're obviously a fan of Google, but your articles don't seem to lose the NPOV because of that interest.  However, I would suggest that you only assess articles for which you have not made significant contributions - the extra set of eyes can lend perspective.
 * Admin stuff: I think you have the temperament that this community needs, and the level of activity that it expects.  As you have identified, you will certainly get some opposes based on the low percentage of article space edits.  Whether or not you identify it as an area you would be active in, expect your CSD work to be closely reviewed; arguably this is a more important area for improvement than article writing, although they are tied closely together (a common rationale that I've seen is that editors without much article work lack the empathy to deal with deletions).  At your rate of editing, I would think that once your article edits are more than half your total that you'd present yourself as a fairly qualified candidate.