Wikipedia:Editor review/BusterD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] User:BusterD

BusterD (talk • contribs) Am starting into deeper waters here on en.wiki, and want to make sure I'm behaving and editing in manner appropriate with someone who may seek the mop someday next year. Frankly, I'm much more concerned about making quality page space than obtaining admin tools, but can already see I have some potential and aptitude for plumbing as well. BusterD 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hello, BusterD, good to meet you and hope to see you around. The thing that impresses me about you as an editor are the following: (1) You don't seem overly eager about the Admin tools. I vote a lot on Rfa and it makes me feel a little wary when I see a user who seeks out the mop without proving themselves as a fine editor. You seem content to prove yourself as an editor first and that is great. (2) You've ffound your "niche" on wikipedia and that is in Civil War related articles, something which a few months back, I found to be an area of need (although I don't have the expertise in the area which you appear to have). Not only do you contribute to Civil War related articles, but you also seem to be a main(if not the main) contributor to the Civil War portal. I am a big fan of portals, and I, personally, like to see a lot of portal edits. (3) You are a good vandal fighter. (3) You have a good amount of edits in template space. (4) Lotsa edits to talkspace. The only suggestion I have is to do more in WP name space. You seem to have experience in Afd, so keep that up, but also contribute in Rfa's and perhaps in some of the areas which a lot of people negelct, like voting and nominating "Good Article Collaboration" of the week," categories for deletion, etc. You might want to wait a few months on an Rfa for yourself, and you seem patient so that probably isn't a problem. The only problem with an Rfa for yourself now might be mainspace edits where you are just under 1000. I myself would vote "Support" noting the portal edits, but some of the tougher voters might not. And some would see your best month as 503 edits and vote oppose. Some people think you should be married to the wikipedia, but I think you should have one outside of the WP. Overall, you are a great user and you have really good balance in edits and have contributed in an area which is important(being one of the most important events, if not the most important in US history, and I commend you for contributing in such an important area. The only other recommendation I can find is to contribute some images. With Civil War images, I'm sure almost all the Civil War era photos and paintings have expired copyrights. Jcam 16:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the strong feedback and kind words. Since I'm stepping up my involvement, I thought this would be a good time to get some feedback, so I'm a sort of "known quantity", people can later come back and see what others not involved in any process have reported in non-event-related measurement. I know I've been a fairly good wiki citizen, but I need some advice as to how best proceed. Your feedback was exactly the tonic I was searching for. I myself have some goals edit wise before RfA: I'd like about 2500 page space edits and about 500 image edits (I think my other numbers are fine and growing) before I have any interest in taking on the responsibilities of service. I already have some idea in my mind about how I'm going to make those as yet unmade edits. We actually have about a dozen really fine ACW editors (some of them stay to the shadows because wiki-controversy is repellent to them), but the area I've seen failing is the bridge between the technology/science group (which is really strong) and the Military History project (second only to WPComics for participants), so we've created a military technology group and a military science group (on which I'm taking point). BusterD 01:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we're the largest now: 446 members to Comics' 368. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You're well on your way to a successful RFA at this point, I think. Your article work has been impeccable, as has your overall manner. On a general point, more edits are always a good thing—editcountitis is alive and well, despite the incessant attempts to squelch it—particularly in project-space; your participation in MILHIST should help rack up the experience there. Taking point (successfuly) on a task force is something that'll probably be significantly in your favor; past experience suggests that people who have an extensive history of WikiProject work do extremely well at RFA. Beyond that, just keep doing what you've been doing so far, and you should have no problems. Kirill Lokshin 03:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill. I'm just now getting situated at Military Science. I expect that my pagespace edits in this area will be substantial. I'm making a list. BusterD 22:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, you do seem to be one of the few sane ones around here, aside from this inexplicable desire to be an admin. Are you sure you want to be one? In some ways you can do more without the powers of an admin, because there is less pressure to be fair and unbiased. Sometimes, in order to fight bias, you have to take sides, and a regular contributor can get away with that better than an admin. If you run for admin, I'll go ahead and vote for you, but are you absolutely sure you want the job? crazyeddie 23:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider adminship lightly, and may not be the guy that gets chosen. I don't plan on nominating myself. Heck, I get lots of satisfaction just fixing bad cats. But when I look at FAs, I see some person's or group's aspiration, and the pedia's validation of the chosen goal. Adminship is similar validation, I want to feel both in a community I've come to greatly respect. My interest in taking on responsibilities isn't entirely altruisitic; my native server engine will soon include a built-in wiki engine and personally I think wikis are going to be a growing thing. Learning more about this helps me to know more about my day job, so while I can't yet wiki at work, In my specific situation it's a lofty aspiration. BusterD 22:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

For the record, I've added this user subpage which I think has relevance to this gentle process. BusterD 02:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I'm a tiny bit proud of my first real article Official Records of the American Civil War. I let another senior user (who has since become a wikimentor and friend) help me get it right very early, and the article hasn't really needed many changes since we finished fiddling with it. I believe I really cut my teeth on article creation with Military leadership in the American Civil War, because this was a B-class article created out of whole cloth on my sandbox and was saved to the pedia in pretty much its present condition. I don't consider the latter article finished, but I'm happy with how it came out.
    It occurs to me that perhaps my wiki pride and joy is Template:American Civil War Menu, a tool originally designed by User:Hlj at my request, then carefully redesigned and honed over time. In particular, I am proud of the civil process Hal and I have used to collaborate preventing random additions to the article. By taking another user's suggestion, we designed some simple page-specific notability and usage guides and we strive to apply them fairly using consensus. That process could be a model for protecting some controversial subject page space. BusterD 12:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. 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?
    Taking cues from some more seasoned users, I spent a bunch of my early edits working on stubs, and I recommend that important work to newbies. I have been involved recently with some conflicts, one with an unseasoned user, and one with IMHO an abuser. In my early days, I could have easily panicked when I saw someone making edits I strongly disagreed with (I thought urgency was everything; see my early conflict with User:Rjensen on the Mil Lead article for example). As I've become more seasoned, I have developed some trusted wiki-allies who I might call on for a look and consensus building, and understand the system of reporting (see my recent conflict with same user on William Tecumseh Sherman). In the case of Al Gore III, I decided that if what I considered an abusive editor was accusing me of personal attack, that I should report myself and let the process work itself out. Now there's RfC on the talk page and consensus appears to move toward protecting the pedia re:WP:BLP.

[edit] Suggestions from MONGO

1. I like to see a minimum of 250 edits to wiki namespeces...more participation in Afd's, and discussion pages if possible, so you're close to halfway on that.

2. Spend some more time doing vandalism reversions.

Everything else seems fine..but clear demonstration of a need for admin tools, a general helpful attitude and little evidence of incivility, along with about 3,000 edits, of which at least 250 of them are in wiki namespece, are generally my criteria for support. You're almost there now, so keep up the good work.--MONGO 05:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Boy-o-boy did I feel a hankerin' for admin tools on Talk:Al Gore III (which has now been a sanitized a bit for less POV viewing), but I didn't actually have a need, and I probably would have acted improperly without needed foundation. Acquiring formal responsibilities is actually not as a big deal for me as getting a vibrant Military Science/Technology cluster going at the current time. My progress seems very satisfactory to me so far, but (as I've previously confessed) I've been touching my toes in the firehose stream of admin-like tasks gradually, so as to not injure others with my lack of perspective. I enjoy reading the pedia, and enjoy just hitting the random article button. So kind of you to give helpful feedback. Thanks again. Call on me if I can help. BusterD 05:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions from Voice of All

You seem to do quite a few reverts, though you don't seem to warn users much. Since you are not an admin and can't just block, you may want to give more warnings so that repeat vandals are easier to spot. Also, you don't have much involvement in WP: namespace. I'd suggest more AfD and AfC work. Perhaps you can use AIV a tad more. Lastly, you should make better use to mark edits as minor when they are minor. Those are the only things I can think of, everything else looks pretty good. You have a good percentage of mainspace edits, just not much to project pages.Voice-of-All 05:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Originally I was getting the impression from the scripting which appears when I clicked javascript rollback that the user talk page had been tagged automatically, but after I noticed it was not, I got lazy. Re: minor edits, I noticed that myself, and have switched my default to be minor edit. As I've said already, my lack of involvement in WP: namespace has been... shyness, and a feeling of being unqualified to make considered opinions. Now that I'm feeling more validated (and this ER is part of this process) I expect to schedule more time for WP: process, and work on my pagespace and image edits. BusterD 22:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encouragement

BusterD, I have found your edits to be well written, with a strong bias for historical accuracy and fairness. Your writing style is concise and informative, and without POV influences in what I have seen. Keep up the good work, and good luck with the Wiki admin process. Scott Mingus 12:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Scott! You and Hal are two of the ACW editors who keep the eyes on pagespace; I watch both of your wiki careers to help improve my own. It helps a lot that there are folks I tend to agree with I can count on, but I'm trying to develop a group of wiki allies I can trust with whom I don't normally agree. Even wiki-bears like Dr. Jensen have their value, and appreciating that has been part of my happy learning process. BusterD 22:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ditto

BusterD, I have enjoyed working with you on American Civil War topics for quite some time now. Your work on the ACW menu template showed your dedication to thoroughness and good judgment. Your work on the nascent ACW portal has been innovative and has demonstrated a lot of leadership. I have found your reaction to troublesome users to be quite patient and professional and have appreciated your support in some of these disputes. I really know little about the qualifications associated with administration on Wikipedia, so I cannot comment on aspects such as edit counting and AfD/CfD as the previous commenters have done, but I am certain that you have the disposition to be a fair and diligent administrator. My only suggestion would be to take on more original writing, such as expanding some of the hundreds of stubs that still remain in our area. If you check out my User page, you will see a rather large list of articles needing attention from thoughtful editors. Good luck! Hal Jespersen 16:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And I appreciate our association as well. I know we've run into editors who haven't at first recognized or seen the sense of our template talk guides, but by just explaining to editors what we aspire to the page, we help bring such a vision to fruition. It's a process which is open, fair, and practical, plus it works. Would that we could use a similar but enlarged process to bring the ACW main page to FA status... I agree that your stub page contains loads of worthy subjects which deserve fuller treatment. I'm trying to establish some personal goalsetting myself. BusterD 23:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions from Shell Kinney

It looks like you edit summary usage has gotten very good; almost 100%. You've also started to work in the Wikipedia namespace and give users warnings when reverting vandalism. You use discussion pages well and have gone out of your way to reach consensus with editors, even when they're behaving quite a bit unreasonably. It wouldn't hurt to continue to do more in the Wikipedia space; in addition to reading the admin noticeboards, comment when you can. The only thing I notice you don't do much of is major writing to articles; might not be your thing though, and there's nothing wrong with that. Shell babelfish 02:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As I was looking back at my contributions, I noticed that about the time of Wikimania I started going through what I'll call a reactive phase. I stopped creating new and better page content and got far more involved in vandalism patrol, the ACW portal and categories. In order to be proactive I'm going to need to schedule my wikitime better, and keep recent changes java running in the background. Funny that after a year and a half I'm still finding my footing. The js tools have transformed my experience to be a much better reactor, and I've kinda over done it. I do have some pagespace ambitions separate from mere numbers, but am taking everything slowly. Suits my occasionally slothful nature. BusterD 15:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/Wikipedia%7EEditor_review_BusterD_24cf.html"