Wikipedia:Editor review/Ojay123

Ojay123
I've been here on Wikipedia for over a year now, and in that time my focus has now shifted to reverting vandalism with rollback. I have failed an RfA, which I'll admit could have been held off until I have more edits, and I'd like to see how I can improve my edits further so that I may eventually become an admin. Thanks! --Ojay123 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Ojay123 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Hey Ojay123. I was looking at a general spreadsheet of your edits and it looks like you have a well balanced area of editing (User is a little big but so is mine). You are very low on talk page edits, which is alright(just telling you). I also look at your contributions and found that most of your edits are reversions of vandalism. That is totally cool but it's always good to have a nice collection of article contributions to help you become an Admin. I would suggest looking at the articles requested for more than a year, and creating an article you nurture into the mature range of b-class. The more the better. Also I suggest taking a small break from huggle or the vandalism tool you prefer and read some good articles to form an idea as to what a really really good article is (if you've already done that then I applaud you!). To me, getting the inspiration to write and raise an article is a good one, so just look around in the topics you are interested in and see if any strike your fancy! Happy editing and please reply on my talk page as to whether or not this helped you :).  Marx01  Tell me about it 01:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - In reference to question 2 below, you did absolutely the right thing. Who in their right mind not revert this edit?. I would support your run for a sysop position if you could possible increase the number of article edits.
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 14:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On the whole your edits seem very good. Going for an RFA when you did was a bit ridiculous: in my opinion you need at least another thousand article edits and even then they'd have to be very very good to pass an RFA. Keep up the good work and maybe a year from now I might support you in an RFA, but before even considering that you need to just do some work on Wikipedia and gets some experience. Alan16 (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions include monitoring the recent changes feed using Huggle and using rollback to revert any changes I think are to be considered vandalism, as well as expanding stubs using Random Page.
 * 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?
 * Not exactly, but one revert I made to an edit on New English School (Jordan) caused confusion. As it was, Aua accused an IP of advertising the school, whereas the IP accused Aua of bearing a grudge against the school.  My feelings about this was that I had done the correct thing and that it is vandalism, as I explained to both sides, and eventually the problem passed
 * 1) With respect to question #2 above: Do you think your "correct" conclusion of vandalism was appropriate, considering upon inspection of the problem, the page's history, and the talk page, there were three clearly different IPs involved and an extremely long and controversial history on the talk page?  How do you defend your position considering you yet still appear to not actually admit the extent of the issue—still equivocating and referring to "the" IP (given that, in the context of your last answer you refer to two significantly different contributors, one who made 1 or 2 changes and was reverted, and the other who made 35 edits to the article and 18 edits to talk as the IP)?  Do you feel you investigated the situation enough to reasonably claim you "had done the correct thing and that it [was] vandalism?"  I could see it being appropriate for you to step back and recuse yourself from the topic, but do you feel it is appropriate to claim you made the "correct" conclusion?   To declare my involvement fairly, I am 66.183.69.201 (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, yes, I feel that I made the correct conclusion that it was either unconstructive editing or contrivercial editing, and should if anything be discussed before action is taken. The suggestion that I mentioned to Aua was to find appropriate refs for that fact so that the matter can be proven.