Wikipedia:Editor review/Jcam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Jcam

Jcam (talk • contribs) Well, I've passed the 1000 edit threshold, and I've done a few reviews of other editors, so I guess it's my turn to be reviewed. While I think I would be a good administrator, I think "It should be no big deal" goes two ways. I believe it's not a trophy, and whether or not I ever become an administrator will not make or break my wikiexperience. So with that in mind, I just want feedback on how the community sees my contribution, what areas I can improve on, and since I have reviewed other editors, maybe even give me ideas(through your review) on how to better review other editors(if that makes sense). And if you think I would be a candidate for admin(and as I said, that's no big deal), tell me what I need to work on. I probably wouldn't self-nom myself, so what would I need to have someone say, "this guy should be one! " ? I thank anyone (and everyone) who reviews me in advance for your time and effort. Jcam 03:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Only looking at mainspace edits for the moment:

1. The first thing that jumps out at me is this reversion without edit summary. <Note that "rv" is not an edit summary, as it tells us nothing.> This wasn't "vandalism" per se, so a lighter touch would have been more appropiate.
2. Same goes here where you removed "Mookambika," which we even have Mookambika for.
3. This edit is troubling to some degree. Your edit summary implies that you believe there is a difference between "terrorist" and "resistance fighters" that is free from subjectivity.

I'd like you to take contributions from IPs a bit more seriously, and address possible content issues with more than a simple "rv." In all these cases a note on the talk page would have been nice as well, explaining why you thought the change was ill-advised.
152.91.9.144 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• I thank you for your quick reply, 152.91.9.144. Perhaps I was a little bit quick on those edits above(as I remember I was quite tired and not at my best). The first edit replaced a well known member of a well known band with a redlink, so I felt it was a bad edit (why replace a well known example with an obscure one) ? The second was a mistake, and I apologize. The third one was, I suppose, questionable, although I felt at the time I was editing an edit which was made to stir up trouble. I realize the issue with "terrorist" and "resistance fighter" is an old one. Perhaps given my history, I am a little quick to jump the gun with IP editors, and I'm sorry. I don't believe in shoot first, aski questions later as a general rule. Jcam 04:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well I must say that I was surprised to learn that you've only got little more than one thousand edits. I was also surprised to learn that you were a vandal in the past. I must praise your honesty, you could've hidden it but you decided to let us know about it. :-) I believe that an editor is to be judged for his recent contributions, not for mistakes that occurred far in the past. You might have been a vandal then but that has little importance from the moment you've created a new account and started a clean, brand new participation in this project. Furthermore, you clearly have great potential, I can see from your contributions that you are striding along the path to adminship. In +1000 edits I can already detect vandal-fight, participation in XfD/RfA, image tagging... Very positive signs indeed. Plus your commendable editorial performance, of course. Now, my main recommendation for the moment would be stepping up your pace. On most days, you're not a heavy contributor. Administrators are usually expected to be have a greater amount of daily edits. You can compensate this by fighting more vandalism. I noticed that you applied for VandalProof, but I could not find your name on any of the lists so I'm not sure if you were given access to it. If not, maybe you should try again and greatly enhance your vandal-fight with it. Popups can also prove handy. When warning users, don't forget to subst your templates (e.g. {{subst:test1}} instead of just {{test1}}). That will replace the content of the template to the talk page instead of just transcluding it (which could cause the message to be disrupted if the template is changed or vandalized). Always add edit summaries to all of your edits, including minor ones. You got a near perfect edit summary usage though. Now, about your eventual RfA, I do not recommend attempting one before you have +3000 edits (preferably +4000 edits), +1000 edits of which on the mainspace and a few hundreds on the Wikipedia space. You've been a registered user since May 2005, but other users will likely only have into account the period during which you were a very active contributor. So once again I recommend increasing the flow of good work. I hope this was helpful. Happy editing! Regards.--Húsönd 05:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  PS:A last recommendation came to my mind as I reread your comment/answers: please try to leave a space between a word and a parenthesis (like this) but not(like this). These things can't go unnoticed to perfectionist freaks such as myself... :-)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
• It may be noteworthy to mention that I was once a vandal (long before I even registered this account. I wasn't up there with "Johnny", "WoW", "Mr. Pelican," etc. but I was probably blocked several dozen times for misc. things like nonsense, blanking, etc. I was never hard banned, but I made a decision a couple months back to come clean(I didn't really need to- I've moved to a different state and therefore don't edit from the same IP's I used to). I figured it's better to be honest with the community, I don't hide the past and have even brought it up in discussions(in an Rfa, and with a user who made a huge deal about vandalism telling him that what vandals want is attention). I don't know what others feel about an editor who used to be a vandal and whether that would ever hurt my chances in an Rfa. I haven't vandalised in at least 2 years, don't plan on becoming a vandal again, and am an effective vandal fighter (although I have made a few "cute" edits of the "bad humor and other deleted nonsense" variety). Jcam 03:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   There are a few things which I am pleased with. One glaring deficency I found on many US states' article page was that most made no mention of climate. Having read many paper encyclopedias growing up, I know that a climate section is always in each state's article, yet in wikipedia, only around 10 states had a section on climate. So I set out to change that and have written many of the state's climate section and contributing to others with inadequate sections(such as Kansas which made no mention of tornadoes.) I'm not done with it, but when it's done, I hope to have all 50 states with a good climate section. I've also started more than a few articles which were redlinks. I've contributed a great deal to American football strategy and plan on working more on that (which as it stands now, is a mish-mash of articles many of which repeat the same information, and are need of mergers, redirects, rewrites, etc). I also participate in Rfa's, Xfd's and I've written more than a few editor reviews which I hope the editors have found useful.

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?

   Not any major conflicts, and definitely none which caused me stress. I follow 1RR. If I don't like someone "fixing" an edit I made, I'll discuss it. That's what "talk" pages are for. If we can't come to some mutual consensus, then I simply figure it's not worth getting stressed out about. Wikipedia is about consensus and if my edit was the right one, then it will all sort it out sooner or later. It may take one day, one week, or longer, but it all sorts itself out. You gotta have faith that it will... My biggest conflicts perhaps have been in Rfa's and Xfd in which discussion tends to become a little... heated. About the biggest stress I personally had was an Rfa in which the candidate was on his way to becoming an admin(I think it was 9-0-0, but I had serious reservations about him, so I voted oppose(he had had an unsuccessful nom a month earlier and I felt the issues weren't sufficiently dealt with). Ater I voted, others voted oppose and I feel a little bit guilty because I feel maybe I derailed it- he is a nice guy and will be an administrator someday, but he's not ready yet.