Wikipedia:Editor review/The Transhumanist

The Transhumanist
I've been teaching others at the Virtual classroom, in general, and as a coach for admin coaching. And since I've been recommending to each of my students to sign up here, I figured I better get some first-hand experience in this process. So please, review me, and don't hesitate to pull out all the stops. If critiquing is what this page is all about, please give me your best shot. Thanks. The Transhumanist 22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

First, I had never encountered your classroom before seeing you here on ER. I want to strongly commend you for that resource. Overall, it seems like you're a very productive editor. A number of your Wikipedia space and related overhauls are excellant. You always seem ready to offer advice and a helping hand, which is a quality I greatly admire. I found it very hard to find something to be critical about and I looked extensively, but I did come up with two minor nits/suggestions to bring up. I would recommend you spend a little more time in Wikipedia talk. Someone with your experience and viewpoint could be a very valuable contributor to policy discussions. I'd also recommend a little more time spent on article building. While your list, portal and redesign contributions are fantastic, I was highly impressed with the article work you've done and I think Wikipedia could benefit from you putting more attention towards that. Overall, you are a fantastic contributor and it was very difficult for me to find something to criticize or suggest you do differantly. Even the "criticisms" I brought up are a matter of personal preference in time distribution and should not dissuage you from the excellant work you have been doing. Vassyana 16:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do what I can in article space. As time allows.  Thank you for the input.  The Transhumanist

 Comments 

 Questions
 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool --- (for complete contribs, see my archives, accessible from my user page). I've put in 23,000+ edits ''including those from my anonymous IP and previous accounts.


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Lists of basic topics (that page, and the pages listed on that page). Because they provide the closest thing to a concise version of Wikipedia currently available, organized by subject, and because they provide overviews of subjects in a somewhat standardized "cheat sheet" format which is easy to understand.  The pages seem to be getting a lot of traffic, and have generated very few complaints.  I've enjoyed and am pleased with the results of almost all of the various projects I've taken on, which are listed on my user page.
 * 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?
 * Yes, but those are fading into the distant past - distant in wiki-time, anyways. The last one was in November, I think.  I was chastized for being overly "shouty" and immature in a deletion debate.  I didn't realize that text formatting (bold, italic bold, strikeout, etc.) was interpretted in that way, but I've refrained from using excessive formatting in deletion debates and administrative discussions, because of its wiki-interpretation.  Another conflict, from about a year ago, is explained on my user page (a Request for comment for overzealousness).  I haven't been subject to any RfCs since, nor would I put myself in such a position again.  Being more experienced in wiki-markup and Wikipedia-style page layout nowadays, I've been able to make sweeping changes to high-traffic pages without ruffling feathers nor raising concerns.  Once you get a "feel" for the community's wants, needs, tastes, and standards, things go pretty smoothly.  A couple months or so ago, I misjudged the reaction to changing a shortcut, and momentarily lost AWB access.  After apologizing and offering to help clean up my changes, my AWB access was restored.  See User:The Transhumanist (AWB).  So now, I restrict my redirection of shortcuts to those which show up on no more than a handful of pages - if someone still objects, I would revert my changes without hesitation -- though no one has complained as of yet.  When an existing shortcut is in greater use than that, it can be very time-consuming to get it changed (requires a proposal, discussion, etc.).
 * All in all I'm much more laid back than I used to be. There are a great many ways to influence change in the right direction without being defiant or resorting to edit wars. The Transhumanist 22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I am proposing a policy. Let's suppose wikipedia starts a new thing called "dependable users" or "trustworthy users" (or whatever the name be). They may or may not be admins. They are chosen by a method somewhat like RfA, with special emphasis on their past anti-vandalism activities. They are not given all the admin tools. But given relaxation from the 3RR, in order that repeated vandalism can be fought more easily and in a straigh-forward way. Do you support this proposal? Give reasons. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the question. I would have to respectfully oppose the proposal, for two reasons.  First, reversions of vandalism are exempt from 3RR, and second, we don't need another approval process like Requests for adminship.  (RfA).  The main factor that determines whether a user is qualified for the mop is trust by the community.  Therefore, RfA already serves the purpose of selecting trustworthy editors.  The "Dependable users" department would unforfunately be reinventing the wheel, and might compete with RfA for participators.  RfA needs all the feedback it can get, which such users could provide.  It's best to steer them towards WP:RfA, or towards Editor review, which helps prepare editors for RfA. Just my two cents.  The Transhumanist 17:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I am proposing a policy. Let's suppose wikipedia starts a new thing called "dependable users" or "trustworthy users" (or whatever the name be). They may or may not be admins. They are chosen by a method somewhat like RfA, with special emphasis on their past anti-vandalism activities. They are not given all the admin tools. But given relaxation from the 3RR, in order that repeated vandalism can be fought more easily and in a straigh-forward way. Do you support this proposal? Give reasons. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the question. I would have to respectfully oppose the proposal, for two reasons.  First, reversions of vandalism are exempt from 3RR, and second, we don't need another approval process like Requests for adminship.  (RfA).  The main factor that determines whether a user is qualified for the mop is trust by the community.  Therefore, RfA already serves the purpose of selecting trustworthy editors.  The "Dependable users" department would unforfunately be reinventing the wheel, and might compete with RfA for participators.  RfA needs all the feedback it can get, which such users could provide.  It's best to steer them towards WP:RfA, or towards Editor review, which helps prepare editors for RfA. Just my two cents.  The Transhumanist 17:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the question. I would have to respectfully oppose the proposal, for two reasons.  First, reversions of vandalism are exempt from 3RR, and second, we don't need another approval process like Requests for adminship.  (RfA).  The main factor that determines whether a user is qualified for the mop is trust by the community.  Therefore, RfA already serves the purpose of selecting trustworthy editors.  The "Dependable users" department would unforfunately be reinventing the wheel, and might compete with RfA for participators.  RfA needs all the feedback it can get, which such users could provide.  It's best to steer them towards WP:RfA, or towards Editor review, which helps prepare editors for RfA. Just my two cents.  The Transhumanist 17:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have encountered you and your work on the virtual classroom before. He has done a great deal of work, working like a bot on some articles. Your edits to articles that I once tagged because they did not contain any information was and still is superb (but I still encourage you to actually create articles with information in). Your userpage just about sums everything up - and the summary is very long anyway. I would recommend you as a user and I feel that your RfA would not have been out of place if it had passed. The amount of work you do is amazing, and so are the barnstars.

How to improve:
 * Create articles with information in.
 * Maybe do a bit more work on Wikipedia talk, participating in discussions to show users that you do not go against policy or have bad behaviour.
 * Continue to work at the Help Desk and work at AfD.

I can't see anything major wrong, however, and I thinks mistakes in the psat do not lead to mistakes in the future. Good luck! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)