Wikipedia:Editor review/Vandalism destroyer

Vandalism destroyer
On Wikipedia, the majority of my edits have been reverting vandalism. I would like to be reviewed on my vandal-fighting efforts, as well as on my other edits. Vandalism destroyer (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 

Although I think that most IP's are vandals, not all of them are. It has become apparent that not all of the time were your reverts legitimate. Judging by the times you have reverted edits by IP's, only around 40-45% were vandalism. Please be a little more observant when you revert vandalism, thank you. 98.226.32.129 (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you've done a fine job reverting vandalism, but it seems like 99.9% of your edits are patrolling in some form. Maybe you should get involved in a wikiproject that interests you and keep reverting vandalism too (I'm guilty as charged here).--Res2216firestar 07:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

Some quick comments. Fighting Vandalism is nice, and you should continue, however, a good Wikipedia editor is experienced all around, in all aspects. For Example: Writing articles, sourcing, reviewing, etc. Also, I would recommend getting VandalProof if you don't already have it. Cheers,  Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a line''' 17:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I have been pleased with my vandal-fighting efforts. Helping keep Wikipedia constructive has been a really fun way to contribute.
 * 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. 7 users have complained that my reverts were misguided. 5 were nice and helped me to understand the problem without causing anymore turmoil.One of these kind users had actually removed a link that contained malware, but in his edit summary, said "THIS LINK IS MALWARE," or something along those lines. I assumed that was vandalism, and reverted. He contacted me about it, I took a look at the link, and he was, indeed, making a good-faith edit.
 * Yes. 7 users have complained that my reverts were misguided. 5 were nice and helped me to understand the problem without causing anymore turmoil.One of these kind users had actually removed a link that contained malware, but in his edit summary, said "THIS LINK IS MALWARE," or something along those lines. I assumed that was vandalism, and reverted. He contacted me about it, I took a look at the link, and he was, indeed, making a good-faith edit.

''2 other editors were not very nice. One of them kept reverting an article about a city in Alaska. I reverted and warned him, and he contacted me, accusing me of "spamming and threatening" him. I told him that he had been warned several times before about that particular article. He accused me of lying, saying that he had only been warned once when, in fact, he had been warned several times. After a while, I left the job to other editors, who he was also uncivil to. He was eventually blocked for disruptive editing, and sockpuppetry.''

''Another kept vandalizing a page which happened to be fictitious. I asked him to stop vandalizing the aritcle on his talk page. Although it was the only way he knew how to get an admin's attention, I asked him to stop, as he already had gotten my attention. But still he persisted, after which I directed him to an administator, who subsequently fixed it up.I believe that I may still be a little "Rough around the edges" when it comes to conflicts, but I am sure that as I encounter more experiences, I will be able to settle conflicts quickly and painlessly.''