Wikipedia:Editor review/Selmo 2

Selmo
I've snowballed two previous RfAs due to lack of experience. Recently, I have been hanging around WP:RFC and WP:AFD to demonstrate what I know in appropriate circumstances. I hope I can show enough experience, as I haven't cited every policy that exists. Some of them are rarely cited except under rare circumstances, such as WP:OFFICE and WP:NLT. I hope I have done enough, and if I haven't, tell me me.

Admin-like chores I'm already doing are RC patrolling, participating in XfD discussions, and responding to RfCs. I prefer helping out on user conduct RfCs, because the subject may be causing a distraction to the other editor by being uncivil. I also feel that some of my vandal reverts may have been missed by others if I wasn't there. I am already doing a lot to help out the community, even without the mop. Someday, I'll submit an RfA that passes. -- Selmo  (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews  Review by delldot: Hi Selmo, I admire your work. Some thoughts:
 * Looks like you handled things well here, you admitted your error, appologized, and agreed not to do it again. I think the user was right to object to such a large change without discussion, but you did well handling it without getting defensive.  You have a large number of talk edits, which suggests to me that you do usually discuss large changes and that this was an anomaly (unless you tag talk pages or something).  But do be sure to discuss and gain consensus for large or potentially controversial changes before making them.
 * Looks like you're working on getting SkyTrain (Vancouver) to FA status! This is great that you're so committed to improving articles, I'm really impressed.  You're also involved in Vancouver related portals and wikiprojects, also great.
 * Good amount of anti-vandal work, too. Remember to warn users after you revert their edits.  This helps them be blocked sooner, and who knows, maybe it will actually convince some of them to stop.
 * Great edit summary usage.
 * I saw no evidence of incivility after a brief check of your talk page.
 * After a moderately thorough look at your contribs, I saw no evidence of unfamiliarity with the policies and guidelines. I don't know that citing all of them would be a way to prove that you are familiar with them.  I think most users just look for a reasonable amount of participation in various areas without bungling anything up big time.
 * It looks like you're doing a great job. delldot | talk 00:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I have one FA (Vancouver) and one GA (SkyTrain (Vancouver))under my belt. Creating an encyclopedia should be everyone's job, even administrators. If everyone sat around discussing policy and reverted vandals, this would never grow. I'm always trying to improve articles, one way or another. I feel that all articles should be brought to the FA standard.
 * 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?
 * Recently, one user was editing under the impression that I was mentally retarded. He saw me as a dictator that he must stop. A post to WP:ANI led to the behavior stopping. He was justifying his actions because I offended him.
 * Last night, an editor accused me of copyright infringement, and wanted one of my pictures deleted. This hurt me because it felt like he was saying that I was a horrible photographer. When he further added my word to IfD, he called it "Unencylopedic", and continued to insist that I was infringing copyright dispite a note on his talk page. It was borderline harassment. I did click the "vandalism" revert button, because he removed a perfectly valid license.
 * Admins should always other admins take administrative action against the other user. Sometimes, they don't need to, and in that case, they should mediate between the two (since RfCs require two parties to attempt to resolve the dispute first, unless WP:3O is used, though WP:ANI is the main forum for discussing administration). -- Selmo  (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)