Wikipedia:Editor review/The Illusive Man

The Illusive Man
Looking for the input of more experienced community members, looking for ways to improve! T.I.M(Contact) 19:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I feel like my major contribution is vandalism classification and reversion... I've moved away in some respects from my early days of New Page Patrolling and stub Pharmacology creations. In a way, I am very happy about being a primarily counter vandalism guy - I feel like my work has an immediate impact on the article quality of many dozens of articles at a time!
 * 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 have been involved in a few editor disputes, most all of which caused me some level of stress. I like to think I deal with it in a civil, docile, "how can I do better" attitude - I legitimize all concerns brought to me by other editors, explain in a calm fashion why I made the edits concerned, and request their active review of my actions. In all cases, they end up being correct that my edit was not as good as it could have been, and I change according to discussion, or I educate the other user successfully, and we both grow in the process.
 * 1) What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
 * I want to get an idea of how other editors feel I have room to grow/mature as a Wikipedian. I make strides to contribute, but I feel like to some degree I may need to breakout of vandal reverting. I would like to run for Adminship in maybe a year or so, spending that time to develop along the lines of the knowledgeable editors of this review!

 Reviews 
 * I wish the edit coutmter were working. Even better would be if its results were posted on the talk page.  In the meantime:  You antivandal work is highly appreciated!  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have taken the time to look through your contributions and am genuinely impressed by how much you’ve done over your time here. Looking at your contribution counts, they total around 7,000, which is just plain impressive. You mentioned that you wanted to grow/mature as a Wikipedian; realizing that you need to break out of vandal reversion is a good start on that. In order to grow as a Wikipedian, and perhaps be an Administrator in the future, you will need to expand on what you do.

After looking at your contributions as an editor, I could see that your main focus is on counter-vandalism and reversion. A good majority of your edits come from reversions and good-faith edits, and I can see that you’ve done very well with that. I also applaud your dive into Articles for Deletion as a way of expanding your contributions to Wikipedia. Learning more about Wikipedia’s policies is a very good way to widen your contributions. Please do keep that up!

As for what you can improve on, I would suggest helping in the creation and promotion of content rather than with its maintenance. You’re already on a good start with the promotion part, with your participation with WP:AfC, but you can do more than that. Perhaps find a WikiProject group with your interests and assist in accomplishing their tasks, or collaborate in their good article nominations. There are many incomplete articles or stubs on the site; perhaps you can also concentrate some of your efforts in completing them? I know that you’ve contributed to the completion of some articles in the past, such as for Pilgrim's Corp, but you could do more. Voters for Adminship nominations focus more on your ability to uphold a high standard for articles, a varied range of contributions, and your ability to communicate with other editors and dealing with disputes.

In terms of communicating with other editors, I can see that you’ve been communicating with others, even presenting Ironholds with a barnstar. Your archive shows that you’re actively participating in the improvement of Wikipedia articles outside of the usual chores. This would definitely add to your list of contributions, hopefully giving you the experience of communicating with others (a very valuable skill in Wikipedia).

Overall, the amount of time that you spend on Wikipedia is just commendable. Just use that time to expand on your activities on the site and get a wide variety of experience along the way. With your personality and attitude, you are sure to become an experienced editor in no time! TsukiKanade (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thanks for taking the time to submit this editor review and allowing the community to take a better look at you. Since the very beginning, you seemed extremely quick to catch on to Wikipedia's policies around here, and I've noted that someone raised a concern with you on your talkpage about your CLEANSTART attempt. Please make sure to follow through with whatever ArbCom's documentation demands, in case someone accuses you of sockpuppetry.


 * I'd like to echo TsukiKanade's point above and commend you for your ability to communicate with others and perhaps make friends along the way - that's central to becoming an administrator in the future. Behavior like this and this are rarely found in the editors today sadly, but it is refreshing to see them once in a while. As well, judging by the responses on your talkpage, you are quick to acknowledge your errors when they're pointed out to you, and apologize for them - traits I would like to see in a potential administrator should they commit some egregious errors (and they are human after all, so committing them once in a while is allowed).


 * I've noticed your work is primarily anti-vandalism. I'd like you to see if you can leave more personalized messages on new contributors' talkpages and afford them with the same amount of respect you give the administrators of this website, even though I note you take a deletionist stance towards pop culture articles and an inclusionist stance towards humanist topics. It's an important skill to be receptive and responsive to requests from contributors both new and old, and act a bit less like a robot even when reverting obvious vandalism.


 * I also like how you've attempted to expand your area of contribution to Wikipedia to include the articles for creation process, and have written a few chemistry-related stubs to further your repertoire. Wikipedia however needs content contributors as well as recentchanges patrollers; this is a good start, but I'd like to see some attempts beyond that even, perhaps a few good articles. The logic of this is that oftentimes if you create content you have a good idea of what is or is not encyclopedic, and not just based on vandalism reverts all day long. A few articles like HAGGiS Adventures and Archaeology South-East (Company) and Belle Adler seems to have been taken from the AfC queue, and while I appreciate your attempts to get them into production, I'd like to see more efforts at writing whole articles like this from you in the future.


 * Lastly, I hope you return to Wikipedia and again thank you for submitting this editor review. You are well on the way to becoming a successful administrator if you keep at it and follow these recommendations. TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 01:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)