Wikipedia:Editor review/RJC

RJC
I have been an editor for a number of years now. My edits are increasingly restricted to routine tasks (vandalism reversion, AfD, etc.), so I am thinking about applying to become an administrator and would like some feedback first.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I am mainly involved in articles relating to the history of political philosophy, deletion discussions regarding academics and philosophic concepts, and some policy discussions. Two Treatises of Government and Epistles (Plato) are representative of pages I have contributed significantly to; I restructured the philosophy section of Friedrich Nietzsche to address persistent NPOV issues.
 * 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 think editing disputes of some kind are unavoidable (whether to call Friedrich Nietzsche a "German" recurs with some frequency, for example). The only disputes that have been stressful have involved insulting or tendentious editors.  I hew to the 3RR and hash things out over the talk page.
 * I think editing disputes of some kind are unavoidable (whether to call Friedrich Nietzsche a "German" recurs with some frequency, for example). The only disputes that have been stressful have involved insulting or tendentious editors.  I hew to the 3RR and hash things out over the talk page.

 Reviews 

Sorry it took so long to get to this review. I actually started it a few weeks back, but somehow got destarcted in real life and forgot about it. As for whether you are ready for admin... I would support you. You have been here for 5 years which shows a huge amount of trust. Some who might oppose though would do so because: (1) The most edits you have in any month is 259. (2) You have less than 5000 total edits and less than 2500 article edits. (3) You have a ton of "B" articles to your credit, but don't seem to have any GA's or FA's. Personally, I think you are well-rounded and the kind of candidate we need running for Rfa- you have a good knowledge of policy, you seem to be mature, and aren't likely to ever abuse the tools.
 * Review by VictorianMutant:
 * Civility towards the community: I don't see any huge problems here. Editing Nietzsche is a tough area. I wouldn't want to do it, but someone has to.
 * Article contributions: You have a ton of edits to a lot of articles- 5 articles you've contributed 100 or more edits to and at least 10 you've contributed 50 to. I would try to bring a few of those articles to GA status which would help you in an Rfa.
 * Edit count analysis: You've spent the majority of your time on articles which is a good thing, but you also have ample experience vandal fighting and in Xfd discussions. You are a very well rounded user.
 * RfA-worthiness: As mentioned above, I would support (probably Strong Support), but there would be those who would oppose because of editcountis(as if it's a bad thing to have a real life outside of Wikipedia. I suspect if you went to Rfa right now (and this is just a guess), you would probably get more supports than opposes, but not enough for consensus.
 * Final thoughts: Regardless of whether you go to Rfa or not, I would like to thank you for being a very valuable asset to the project. What would improve your chances at Rfa? (1) Try to have one or two months with at 500 edits if you can. (2) Get rollback, even if you are content with twinkle for vandal fighting. (3) Shepherd a few articles up to GA or even FA status. (4) Get involved in a WikiProject of some sort. Good luck and hope to see you out there! VictorianMutant (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)