Wikipedia:Editor review/Slon02 (3)

Slon02 (3)
Well, it's me again, back for a third editor review. I started editing in December 2009 and have managed to survive three unsuccessful RfA's, the most recent one being in early March. I really appreciate all of the great comments and suggestions from my last editor review, and I feel that they have helped me become a better editor (especially reminding me to use edit summaries) However, I would appreciate some more comments, perhaps RfA-like comments. I'm somewhat entertaining the idea of a fourth jump at it (I'm crazy, I know), yet I don't think it would be smart to jump into a boiling pot when I can turn down the temperature by fixing problem areas now. Slon02 (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions to Wikipedia..I wonder if I should answer this as most useful, or answer this relating to what I focus on the most. I'll go with the latter, and it would be counter-vandalism. I work in the usual areas of AIV, RfPP and CSD (and, in response to my last RfA, I am keeping a CSDlog. However, in terms of usefulness, I'd have to answer that by judging what I personally think has contributed the most to Wikipedia and users' experiences of it, and that would be copyediting. I've been participating in the GOCE backlog elimination drives, and now especially I've turned my attention to editing articles on the Requests page of the Guild, so that I can work on higher-quality articles. I'm also running for coordinator of the GOCE.
 * 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 can't say that I've gotten into any editor disputes that I can remember. As for users causing me stress..well, RfA is a fairly stressful experience in itself, but a quick Wikibreak (followed by a longer Wikibreak for RL reasons) sorted that out quite nicely. If I would ever get into an editor dispute, I'd probably handle it like I do any other interaction with editors, I'd explain my point of view and wouldn't needlessly repeat the same thing over and over.
 * I can't say that I've gotten into any editor disputes that I can remember. As for users causing me stress..well, RfA is a fairly stressful experience in itself, but a quick Wikibreak (followed by a longer Wikibreak for RL reasons) sorted that out quite nicely. If I would ever get into an editor dispute, I'd probably handle it like I do any other interaction with editors, I'd explain my point of view and wouldn't needlessly repeat the same thing over and over.

 Reviews 

The Utahraptor's review

You certainly have come a long way since your last RfA. It looks like the main reason why you didn't succeed was because many users felt as though you were a bit hasty when it came to CSD tagging, which, according to those users, indicated a lack of knowledge regarding CSD tagging. But based on this page, your CSD tagging has improved much, in that both your accuracy and your knowledge in CSD tagging has improved. In this respect, I do think you're ready for a fourth RfA. As a little side note, I sent you a message on your talk page about this page, and I suggest, when you're ready, you contact one of the users listed in this section of the aforementioned page about nominating you.

Another concern raised in your RfA was a lack of content contribution. Since your most recent RfA, you have created four articles, but have only worked substantially on two. I understand they are works in progress, but I would suggest developing them further before venturing into another RfA. Also, I noticed that you've got a Good article under your belt, which was acquired after your third RfA. This is good; most RfA voters like to see these kinds of things. According to your userpage, seven or eight of your articles are only at Start class. Again, I would suggest developing these further before trying RfA again.

What makes up for your Start class articles, however, is your work for the Guild of Copy Editors. Since early July, you have been a coordinator for the Guild, and in my opinion, you have done an excellent job thus far. I do not regret nominating you to be a coordinator; in fact, I'm glad to have chosen you and to have received the opportunity to work with a fine user like yourself. You've been with the Guild for over a year now, and you have definitely made quite the difference, as you've received many awards for your hard work you've done for the Guild.

Before you run for adminship a fourth time, however, I would suggest waiting several more months. It's only been five months since you ran, and even though you waited seven months before running a third time, several users still said you didn't wait long enough. I would suggest running in about seven months. I know that's a long wait, but it will have been a year since your last RfA, and what a lot of voters look for in a second RfA, third RfA, fourth RfA, etc., is a substantial wait time between RfAs. It shows that you are patient and not just power hungry.

I hope this review was helpful. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 17:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

ErikHaugen's review

I looked over some of your deleted contributions. In general, they look great. There are a couple that, while the criteria you chose might not be technically inaccurate, I thought a better tag might apply, for example one was a claim about a company's products that was completely ridiculous that you tagged as spam, but db-nonsense might be more appropriate. Not a big deal by any means. In one I noticed you tagged it with db-attack, but the admin who deleted it used A7 in the summary; but it was really an attack, and I think the distinction is important there, I thought you made the right call. Again, your CSD/prod tagging seems very good to me. Thanks for all the good work! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)