Wikipedia:Editor review/Pdcook

Pdcook
I registered a Wikipedia account back in 2006, but then spent a lot of time observing things and making a few edits here and there. I have been actively editing for almost a year now. A user has twice requested to nominate me for adminship. I declined, as I hadn't really thought about it much and didn't have the time to give thoughtful answers to the questions. Now that I've thought about it, I would consider a run for adminship toward the end of summer. There have been a number of times, particularly dealing with vandals and username violations at UAA, when I could have made good use of the tools. I'm curious what other folks think. Let me know! P. D. Cook Talk to me! 19:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My content creation contributions tend to be about biochemistry, locations, and biographies (particularly scientific biographies). My non-creative contributions include participation in Afd, UAA, RfA, recent changes and new page patrols. I've been quite happy with the Grand Valley State University article. This is my alma mater, and User:Demhem and I have been working on it quite a bit. The article once had many uncited claims and broken links. It's much better now and, with some continued improvement, I might nominate it for GA review.
 * 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?
 * With the exception of correcting vandalism or uncited information, I have not been involved in any content disputes. I have, however, had a couple of stressful encounters with other editors. I'm not going to name names here, but I certainly feel I was in the right, as my arguments were based on policy. They were new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with WP:RS and WP:N. Although one of these editors was blocked for a week, and I started an ANI thread about the other, we get along just fine now. We have even exchanged barnstars. When interacting with any editor, I never let my emotions do the typing. I think calm discussion and rational, policy-based debate can cure most stressful situations. I also fully acknowledge that I am not perfect and am willing to accept constructive criticism.
 * With the exception of correcting vandalism or uncited information, I have not been involved in any content disputes. I have, however, had a couple of stressful encounters with other editors. I'm not going to name names here, but I certainly feel I was in the right, as my arguments were based on policy. They were new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with WP:RS and WP:N. Although one of these editors was blocked for a week, and I started an ANI thread about the other, we get along just fine now. We have even exchanged barnstars. When interacting with any editor, I never let my emotions do the typing. I think calm discussion and rational, policy-based debate can cure most stressful situations. I also fully acknowledge that I am not perfect and am willing to accept constructive criticism.

 Reviews 
 * Good balance between content contributions and admin related work. It seems at RFA's this is good thing. Also, good work on the Grand Valley article, I just think that for a GA nomination, the tags have to be removed first. Hopefully this has helped! Derild  49  2  1  23:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have a little more work to do on the Grand Valley article before I can remove the tags. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Review by Sphilbrick
 * I reviewed your edits to Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt. Nice, clean edits, with proper referencing and good edit summaries.
 * Excellent edit summary usage.
 * Fairly active and clueful at RfA, with thoughtful responses.
 * About 6k automated edits, which are highly discounted at RfA, but the percentage is well under 50%, so that leaves many over 10k non-automated edits, and the automated edits I reviewed show use of edit summaries, with no indications of rushing
 * I see some Prod nominations, checked a couple, they looked reasonable.
 * I glanced through some of your page moves, all I checked seemed in order
 * My biggest concern is relatively low participation in Wikipedia project pages. I checked half-a-dozen recent successful RfAs, most were double digit percentages, with the lowest being 8%. Your participation is under 5%. Even at this level, you do have hundreds of edits in this area, so it isn't a major concern, but candidates for sysop are expected to spend a fair amount of time contributing to ANI, AN, XfD, and related pages; you have quite a few, but it is the one are where a few more edits would help.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured my participation in the Wikipedia: space was a bit low. Thanks for your feedback! I appreciate it. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 20:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)