Wikipedia:Editor review/Slon02 (2)

Slon02 (2)
I have been an editor for a little over a year (started in December 2009), and have had 2 unsuccessful RfA's so far (the last one being in August). I have mainly concentrated my efforts on speedy deletions and vandalism fighting in the past, but have recently moved more into some content creation. I am hoping to go for a third RfA soon (before the end of the month possibly), but until then I hope to create a few more articles, improve Renewable energy in Russia to GA status, and increase my participation in the Wikipedia space, especially through more participation in AfD and RFPP. Slon02 (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I would say that my main contributions are still vandalism fighting. It has been my main area of work for a large part of my time on Wikipedia and is my main interest, and if I become an admin I hope to have continue to work in that area. However, I am also pleased with my copyediting work so far.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * I will once again use this example, where I got into a disagreement over copyedit drive policy and "claiming" an article to copyedit. I'll admit that it was a rather pointless argument, but I stand by how I handled the situation in most ways. I do regret not going to the drive coordinator sooner to settle the conflict, as he would have made a decision (and did) quickly.
 * I will once again use this example, where I got into a disagreement over copyedit drive policy and "claiming" an article to copyedit. I'll admit that it was a rather pointless argument, but I stand by how I handled the situation in most ways. I do regret not going to the drive coordinator sooner to settle the conflict, as he would have made a decision (and did) quickly.

 Reviews 
 * Alright! I'm now done. :)
 * Antivandalism : You do a great job of this! You have 134 edits to AIV, and I see no complaints on your talk page with regards to mistakes you made. (Well, there are the typical "Why did you delete my article?" comments and the trolling, but that doesn't count, and I and every other new page patroller/recent changes patroller have them too!) I don't see any real number of reports to UAA (remember to look at the username of somebody when they make an article, especially when it is blatant spam, as it is commonly a company group account), and there are not a large number of requests for the protection of a page.
 * Namespaces : I like how you have nearly 50% of your edits to article space. You also show that you have communication skills (necessary for an admin) by your edits to the talk and Wikipedia namespaces. Your contributions to the Wikipedia talk space show you know what makes projects go. I also like that you spend little time in your own userspace (in contrast to me, lol).
 * Article contributions : Great work on Renewable energy in Russia! With a little work, you may be able to get it to GA standards. Unfortunately, some of the statements are unreferenced, and I would strongly encourage you to fix every unreferenced statement with a verifiable, reliable source. I also encourage you to improve the article to GA standards, as it is a great feeling knowing that you wrote an article that is a good source of encyclopedic information. More than that, it gives scoffers less ability to mock Wikipedia. Most of your other article contributions appear to be copyediting, but that is also great because maintainers are also needed in an encyclopedia.
 * Policy : In your AFD contributions, I see a lot of good policy knowledge. Try looking at other XFDs, such as CFD or TFD, to see what goes on in them.
 * Other comments : When you are not using automated tools, I see many cases where you have not used an edit summary. This is irritating because it leaves people wondering what you did. You may wish to consider changing the setting in your preferences so that it forces you to use an edit summary. You also have done a lot of great work on GoCE backlog drives! However, in this edit, not only did you forget an edit summary, but you also forgot to sign your comment—bad in deletion discussions. Your "automatic" edit percentage is well over 50%, and that alone will garner some opposition. You also do not have much recognized content: DYKs, ITNs, GAs, FAs, or FLs. You handled the issue with the other copyeditor well, but I also would encourage you to go to a coordinator sooner, as that is what they are for! ;) If you choose to run for adminship this month, make sure you have read Wikipedia's policies on blocking (you probably know this!), deletion, and page protection (especially semi-protection, since I expect you will be combating vandalism). Be careful when appling PC2 protection, as many editors do not like it. Also, know the revision deletion policy, since you will probably have to make many RD2 redactions. (You may also want to check out the recent RFC on RD3.)
 * Overall : I see a great editor who focuses mainly on the maintaining aspect of Wikipedia. I encourage you to also add some referenced content, or source some articles or sections of articles that you find unreferenced. Since you work in AFC, I am assuming you know Wikipedia's policies on notability, verifiability, and reliable sources well. Good luck editing, and maybe you will wield the mop in several months!
 * Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)