Wikipedia:Editor review/Tofutwitch11

tofutwitch11
I have been on Wikipedia since September of 2009. I usually work in the WP:AIRPORTS and WP:AVIATION sections of Wikipedia, but do take part in Vandal Fighting. One day, in the future, I hope to become an sysop. T ofutwitch11 ''' (T ALK ) 14:24, 2 November 2010 (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 are to airport and or Airline articles. The article, Bradley International Airport reflects many of my changes, as I have edited it over 150 times.
 * 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 in editing disputed before, and I have resolved them. Other users may cause stress, but I have been careful not to break WP:3RR even if I feel it is wrong. I try to avoid disputes as much as possible and try to reach an agreement.
 * 1) Do you consider yourself an experienced editor?
 * No, I do not. I've been here just over a year and have recently passed the 2,000 3,500 edit mark. It's hard to say if/when someone would become and experienced editor. To elaborate, I don't think anyone can really be experianced, Except Jimbo . It is different depending on the way you see it.
 * 1) What are you looking for in this review and how do you think reviewers can help you become a better Wikipedian?
 * I am looking for what more experienced, well, what anyone thinks of my work. You can't get better on your own, you need people to help you out every now and again.
 * 1) Are there any particular Wikipedians you seek to emulate and what is about them that you seek to imitate?
 * To list a few, HJ Mitchell -- seems to have gained a lot of community trust, and (to my view) does an excellent job here, Fastily -- did a lot of work for the community as a whole, was often looked up to, which is shown in how many people wished him farewell. To make it simple, I want to be looked up to, be a role model for others, be one that new users will come to for help. 
 * 1) While ER is not supposed to be a stepping stone to RfA, what is it about adminship that interests you and how long do you think it will be before you'll be up to the what's probably the world's worst job interview?
 * It is hard to give a time stamp as to when I will be exposed to the brute of RFA. With the constantly changing criteria other editors of looking for, it could be six months to a year, or less, depending on what the future brings. While I agree RFA is extremely hard to take, I'm up for the criticism, but will not run unless I feel I have a fair chance of passing. 
 * To list a few, HJ Mitchell -- seems to have gained a lot of community trust, and (to my view) does an excellent job here, Fastily -- did a lot of work for the community as a whole, was often looked up to, which is shown in how many people wished him farewell. To make it simple, I want to be looked up to, be a role model for others, be one that new users will come to for help. 
 * 1) While ER is not supposed to be a stepping stone to RfA, what is it about adminship that interests you and how long do you think it will be before you'll be up to the what's probably the world's worst job interview?
 * It is hard to give a time stamp as to when I will be exposed to the brute of RFA. With the constantly changing criteria other editors of looking for, it could be six months to a year, or less, depending on what the future brings. While I agree RFA is extremely hard to take, I'm up for the criticism, but will not run unless I feel I have a fair chance of passing. 

 Reviews  Looks like you've stepped up your activity in the past few months. It's always good to see good editors who were sporadic editors become more prolific. I've actually seen you around Rfa a lot lately, which is good experience if you want to be an admin someday.
 * Review by VictorianMutant:
 * Civility towards the community: Doesn't look like there are any major problems here. One thing I did notice was a number of edits in which an edit summary wasn't used. It's probably okay if it's in your user-space, otherwise you should probably always use an edit summary.
 * Article contributions: You have definitely found your niche with airport and airline related articles. You should try to bring Bradley International Airport up to Good article status since you've already put so much work into it.
 * Edit count analysis: You have struck a good balance between content creation and vandal fighting. Looks like you have started branching out into wiki space more often. Another area you might want to get some more experience in would be XFD's. Deletion discussions will help round out your wiki-experience, although it is often a contentious area.
 * RfA-worthiness: You have said that "one day in the future" you would like to seek the mop... but didn't really ay when in the future. I would recommend waiting until you have at least 10,000 edits.
 * Final thoughts: You are a real asset to the community and I look forward to seeing ya around more often. Thanks for being a part of the community. Victorian Mutant (Talk) 14:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Review by :
 * General civility: You seem to be pretty OK in this area, and should keep it that way. I did notice the same thing as Victorian - your edit summary usage. In average, in the main namespace, it's at about 95%, but lately it's been at 99%, so it's not to worry about too much.
 * Vandal fighting + CSD: Your vandalism fighting and CSD reporting seem to be OK, but you should make sure you always notify the user in those cases.
 * Article contributions: You seem to be helping a lot with airport and airline articles, and it seems like a good thing for you to do. Like Victorian said, you might want to try to get an article to GA status.
 * RfA: Like you said you wanted to be an admin someday, I just wanted to suggest that you wait some time before until you are at at least 6,000 edits (more if a lot are automated) and that you go through admin coaching first. —  Waterfox ~talk~ 21:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Review from HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?
 * I'm not used to doing editor reviews, but since you asked me to pop in, I'll offer you a few general comments. First, I would avoid giving the impression of punching above one's weight. for example, here, you should have realised that there was probably a good reason (ie that the !voter is permablocked by ArbCom) for the !vote being indented and "fixing" it shows a lack of thought and, to some, suggests that you would wade into situations best left to more experienced editors (such as a contentious RfA) without fully understanding it. You seem to have reverted a fair bit of vandalism and done a decent bit of new page patrolling, just make sure you notify authors/warn vandals. I didn't check the logs, but your deleted contribs would suggest that the reviewing admin agreed with you on a good number of speedy tags. Writing a GA or two would be a nice target for you. You seem to be at the stage of your "career" where you're looking for something to really get your teeth into. Writing recognised content also shows a certain level of dedication to the project. Wikipedia is a better place for having you around and I hope you'll stick with us—the value of the people in the back who keep the wheels turning is too often underestimated, but there's a good adage to remember: if all the content writers stopped writing tomorrow, Wikipedia would be useful for years to come, but if all the vandal fighters gave up, Wikipedia would be ruined in a matter of weeks, if not days. As to an RfA, I would suggest that you put that towards the back of your mind for now and focus on broadening your horizons on-wiki, then maybe thinking about it in six months. As a general rule, a candidate with less than 5k edits (excluding Huggle and AWB) and less than 12 months' active editing will have to work a lot harder to convince participants at RfA they're ready than somebidy with that level of experience, but that's a rule of thumb and should be taken with a pinch of salt. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Review by Ajraddatz


 * Hello. I think that you are a great editor of the English Wikipedia, and don't really share in any of HJ Mitchell's concerns. I think that it is possible to contribute to the encyclopedia in different ways than content building, because with only content improvers, the wiki would likewise be ruined. In terms of wanting to be an admin, I'd actually say that that is not a good goal. Adminship is very much overrated - seriously, all it does is give you a lot of boring work that you feel obligated to do. Regardless, that is your choice, and I wish you luck in whatever you choose to do. (Talk) 23:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Review by -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)


 * I've seen you around a fair bit, and when I checked your edit history I was quite surprised to find that you've been here for not much more than a year and have only done about 3,600 edits - the quality of your contributions led me to assume you were someone with significantly more experience. Basically, I think you're doing great - your balance of work seems good, I see a nice mix of content work and community interaction stuff, good understanding of the ways of Wikipedia, and your communication with others is just fine. I'm also very pleased that you're a member of the GOCE - but then I'm biased, for obvious reasons ;-) You say on your user page that you would like to run for admin some day, and from what I see so far I think you have the right qualities for it - I'd suggest you wait a good bit longer though, as it is very tough to get through without a large number of edits. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)