Wikipedia:Editor Review/Tbeatty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] User:Tbeatty
Tbeatty (talk • contribs) I have been an editor since September 2005. I have mostly made small contributions to a number of areas. Moslty subjects that interest me. Most of my edits are sourcing claims, removing POV and rewriting to correct flow and grammar. I also do anti-vandalism. Usually it's finding a single vandal and hunting down their contributions, adding warnings and reporting abuse. THat is the largest reason I would like the tools. There is nothing more disappointing than to report a vandal and then see them return and not be able to instantly stop them.
Reviews
- Since you spend a lot of your time reverting vandalism (12 out of your last 50 edits, as of now), and wish to become an admin to improve your ability to do so, I suggest that you be very careful with how you go about your activities if you wish to gain the tools. Most users, including myself, place a lot of stock in Mindspillage's essay, and so you need to treat "vandals" with the utmost dignity: always start with {{test0}} or {{test1}} (or the relevant equivalent), and work your way up without skipping any tags. This user, for instance, should not have been tagged with {{blatantvandal}} for this edit - it was a simple test, really, and should be treated as such. You've done nothing massively wrong (and I did much the same kind of thing until recently, which led to my own failure at an RfA), but you should make sure to treat apparent vandals as you would any other user, and assume good faith - even of them. Take a little time to be more careful, and you'll do well in a future RfA. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Usually I start with blatantvandal if it's clear either 1) they meant to vandalize the page (i.e. history of vandalism) or 2) they have done multiple vandalisms in a short period of time. I have used test0, 1, etc, when it's a first time vandal or single incident. Point take and I will try to warn more. --Tbeatty 00:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- There's nothing really wrong with that, but it's often preferable to start with the test templates for various reasons. Personally, I believe that the blatantvandal tag should only be used when they deliberately mess with large sections of text (in what can only be a malicious attempt at disruption), while the test series are preferable in any situation where there's a chance they simply made a mistake. Naturally, it's up to you where you choose to draw that line. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 03:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Usually I start with blatantvandal if it's clear either 1) they meant to vandalize the page (i.e. history of vandalism) or 2) they have done multiple vandalisms in a short period of time. I have used test0, 1, etc, when it's a first time vandal or single incident. Point take and I will try to warn more. --Tbeatty 00:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments Here is my edit count.
- See this user's edit history with Interiot's tool and edit summary usage (Warning:Both tools have stopped updating and the edit counts are way off. Please consider using Flcelloguy's Tool or Interiot's Tool 2)
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I have no particular article. Rather, I am pleased that I can take out POV from a large number of articles that are now more encyclopedic. I find it satisfying to come up with wording that is acceptable to all sides in a controversial topic.
- 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?
- I don't shy away from controversial topics so I have been in a lot of conflicts. I have never been blocked for violating policy. I was inadvertantly blocked twice that were reversed both times. Block logs are clean. Other editors don't cause me stress as, of course, this is only wikipedia. Rather, if I find I am not in consensus and it isn't a policy issue, I will generally remove myself from edits. Also, fast moving articles are often so heated and changed so often that editing them is somewhat frustrating so I also try to avoid those except to revert obvious vandalism. I often make my case on a talk page without a main space edit as it can give other editors my viewpoint. I have found that most editors, once they see the other side are very ameniable to including it for NPOV. As long as they are not violating policy, I will usually let the passionate ones write my views as they see it fits in the article.
