Wikipedia:Editor review/Arjun01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Arjun01

Arjun01 (talk · contribs) Okay here I go, I have been a member of wikipedia since early September. I have currently 6,000 + edits. I was also originally known as Seadog.M.S but had my name changed. I have been considering to run for administrator but I am holding of until early-mid next year. Maybe longer pending this review. I would really appreciate a honest review. Also please, please feel free to ask me questions. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. — Arjun 18:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hey Seadog Arjun :) Anyways, from what I'm seeing in your recent contribs, your vandal-fighting work is excellent; however, as is always the downside to a sustained period of RCP, you generally haven't edited thr mainspace to write/contribute to any articles recently, which would probably be frowned upon at RfA. From everything I've seen from you, you are a level-headed and always-civil editor, which are two good traits in a potential administrator. I do have a couple of suggestions:-
    • Firstly, I saw some XfD contributions, which is good; however, I'd reccomend you read this essay just as a reference. I used to do what you have been doing recently (Delete per nom; Keep per WP:NOTE etc.), however that essay really helped me in my contributions to XfD discussions.
    • As I mentioned above, vandal-fighting is great, but doing nothing but it will be frowned on at RfA. I noticed you share my affinity for lists (from Q1 below), so maybe find a list that needs creating/editing/references and work on getting it to FL; FL isn't that hard to get compared to FA, but looks good on an RfA nom :)
    • Your work on FPC is well-respected, so I'm sure people like to see your opinion there every couple of days - finding time is a hassle, but your input is greatly appreciated.
    • In fear of sounding repetitive, your vandal-fighting work is great, and it is good to see you warning vandals. Further, I noticed you report vandals to AIV, which although it may seem basic, shows you know your way around. You'd be surprised how many people don't know when to list vandals (test4+) and how to list them at AIV. My only suggestion is maybe when you go to AIV, if you see a backlog emerging, you quickly check the "vandals" listed to see if any of them are blocked already (but weren't removed), and remove them. The admins like their workspace clean :)
    • Your edit count related to communication with other editors is good (via User talk) is good, however given how much vandal-fighting you do, that could be slightly distorted. Although there isn't much you can do, and remember to avoid chit-chat where not neccessary, discussing things civilly (ie. without template) on user talk pages is always looked upon well, so maybe try to do some more of that. The same principle applies to article talk as well.
    • Your Wikipedia namespace count is relatively low for an admin candidate, obviously influenced by all the RCPing. Although yo do work with FPC, the Help Desk, and XfD, RfA voters love to see people contributing in the areas of AN, ANI et al. I acknowledge your "policy" of Neutrality means you don't want to stick your head in too far, a lot of new editors mistakenly end up on these noticeboards, so merely helping them to the right spot (most tend to be "ZOMG THE MAIN PAGE IS VANDALISED!!!!111" etc) with links (ie. this) is looked upon well by RfA !voters.
    • I could berate you for zero category/cat. talk edits and minimal portal-space/portal talk edits, but really, that would be silly :)
    • If you get bored of vandal-fighting, and have no ideas for writing a new article but still want to help out, I encourage you to help with WP:WIKIFY (blatant Wikiproject promotion here). Basically, if you know the general MOS, then you should be very good :)
Cheers, and best of luck, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not much of a reviewer (let's see, I've done *counts* one other one, and it was your other ER), but I'll try my best due to the message on my talk page. Your work here is commendable; tweak a few things and you'd make a nearly perfect RFA candidate. I guess I'll just use the format you used in reviewing me. Eh.
  • Statistics
  • Mainspace: High, but many of them are vandalfighting. This may be frowned upon in an RfA; try doing either major edits to articles that interest you or wikifying, cleanup, etc. to others. Vandalfighting is great, but too high of a percentage of edits being that is generally a bad thing.
  • Wikipedia: Many edits to this too. Nothing wrong I can see with it.
  • Talk: And a good amount of talk edits. Not much wrong with these, either.
  • Behavior: You are very civil and kind, and after a few months' more, you'll definitely have enough time with the project for an RfA.
  • Overall
  • You are a great user, and while you have some weak spots to work on, they shouldn't be that difficult. (sound familiar? :))
  • Yep. –Llama mansign here 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm always impressed with all your work. I've seen your contributions to the Hinduism Portal, and you are doing afine job at that. You are kind and civil, yet stern with vandals. As for your Wikipedia edits, excellent as well. Keep up the great work, and I know you'll become an admin in no time! --Tohru Honda13Sign me! 01:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is the Rite Revew, the review that's right for you! (Look familiar?) —S.D. ¿п? 13:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Arjun's S.D.'s Royal Rite Reviewtm
  • Stats
  • Overall Edit Count: Your edit count of 7,430 edits is definitely more than 3,000, so keep up the good work!
  • Mainspace: 2,314 edits to the mainspace is very good. Most of them come for vandal fighting, which shows you are a great vandal-fighter. Lately, you seem to be doing some portal and list work, which is good. Maybe getting an article to GA status?
  • Wikipedia: 1,012 edits to Wikipedia space is good. Your strongest areas are the help desk and WP:AIV. I also see good XfD and ER work. Also, keep up the work in FPC and barnstar and award proposals.
  • User talk: You warn vandals and use edit summaries. You also collaborate with other Wikipedians and thank them after they give you help.
  • Behavior
  • Civility: You are civil and keep cool when vandals come to ask you questions.
  • Kindness: Need I say anything?
  • Misc.
  • Edit summaries: You use edit summaries with every edit, which is very good. They are also descriptive.
  • Portal: Good job on the Hinduism portal!
  • Other: Email is on which is very good for sysops to have. Very nice user page.
  • Final thoughts
  • You are a great Wikipedian and my advice is to continue editing as you are doing now. Happy editing! —S.D. ¿п? 13:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggestions
    • As others have said, helping an article become FA or GA is a big boost to your chances.
    • You can try to diversify your contributions. Perhaps you can create some articles and apply them for DYK, work on copyediting, or help fix disambiguation, spelling etc. If you are Bold, you can attempt to neutralise very controversial articles by discussing the issues with both sides which will enhance your reputation as someone who constantly strives for WP:NPOV
    • Maintain your activity. Don't "over-edit" so you don't get bored of Wikipedia soon and almost quit like you have done in yor past. Keep your real life intact.
      • You are well on your way Arjun. Keep up the good work! GizzaChat © 02:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
  • Well I just adore you Arjun, but you know that (hopefully):). You're helpful and kind, and always willing to learn and teach. Without looking at your edits, others have already done, I direct you to two essays I have on my user page. One was written by Gameliel and is entitled "Tips for the angry new user". It makes a good "whacking stick" for when you need to help someone get off the disruptive path. The other I wrote myself, and was inspired by some things I posted at Deskana's editor review, which I expanded into an essay just below the other one. Sincerely, Nina Odell 15:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Vandalism reverting: It's great, but it shouldn't be the only thing you do. I used to do it just as much as you did, but I thought: 1. I wasn't learning anything, and 2. I was wasting hours of time on the same task (one that I liked by the way :). Now, instead of looking for vandalism, I just add some interesting pages from Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages to my watchlist. Whenever I come across vandlism, I revert it; meanwhile, I copyedit/reaserch, which takes up more time per edit, but are (IMHO) more worthwhile.
  • Civility: You're great with this; I don't need to review you.
  • FA: Try to get Hinduism or Guitar up to FA (or GA), and you'll get nominated for FA by yours truly. :-)
  • Wikipedia namespace: My recommendation is to add the Reference Desks that interest you to your watchlist; that way, whenever you see something interesting, you click on the link and get involved. You might want to get involved in WP:FAC, although that's time-consuming.
  • Overall: You are a great user, and I would support an RfA should you nominate yourself today, but I find it unlikely that you would pass. Try to gain a bit more experience in Wiki-space, as well as an FA for your "wikiresume", and you'll pass easily. Also take some time to respond to my optional question below if you'd like. Fly on Littlewing! | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 12:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for helping clear out the editor review backlog and for giving good, thorough reviews. A tiny suggestion: if it doesn't matter who you review, I'd suggest going up from the bottom, since the newest ones are at the top and going from the bottom will thus make the wait time more equal for everyone. Picky, I know :) Thanks again for the hard work around here. delldot | talk 22:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure! I was meaning to do that but I have a lot of recent requests on my talk page to review them. Cheers! Arjun 22:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am mainly pleased with my vandalism fighting work. I would consider it my main area of focus, I tend to always warn the vandals with proper warnings. I am a commons visitor to the AIV as I have about 90 edits there. I have also been a very commons helper to the Help Desk, its on my watchlist :D so I can usually be found there every once and a while. While I am more of a vandal fighter I have been working on various articles. I have worked soundly on Hinduism for a very long period of time, weather it be adding sections or doing editors work, I feels like I have been working on it since I joined :D. But I feel that my best work is the List of Stratocaster players article. here was my first edit too it. And I have went back and added references to most of the original ones. — Arjun 19:03, 3 January 2007 (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?
    I honestly can't say that I have, I have had many vandals and trolls try to tear me down but I don't pay attention :D. Also if there is a large and heated argument between editors I try my best to not get involved. — Arjun 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. What would keep you from being an administrator right now? What could you do to better your chances of becoming one later? Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me
    Well there is nothing keeping from being an administrator now XD. But as for if it were to fail, If it were to fail, I would read all the oppose votes and try to work on my weak areas. I would reapply when I feel that all the problems were addressed. — Arjun 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. If you could emulate any other editor, who would it be? Just H 01:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for the question Just H. I have personal standards which are pretty high, so basically I want to be the best that I can be. As for a particular editor, there would probably be several. First of Daniel Bryant, his work here is very round and covers numerous places, he is kind civil and an over all great editor. Another would probably be essjay, his work here on wikipedia is outstanding. He has done so much that it is incomprehensible. If I could be half as good of those editors I would be very pleased with myself. — Arjun 15:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Why do you edit Wikipedia? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 12:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    Wow what a question! I think this a very important wiki-philosophical question also. As the answer here would probably be the answer to the reason why I logged in in the first place. I edit wikipedia since I think the knowledge wants to be free...free for everybody, free for the world. I am here to help, I edit here because I learn a great deal while doing so, I edit to mainly Hinduism related articles and Guitarist and such. I do a lot of R.C patrolling for the same reason, I want the info to not become marred by people who are just here to make some laughs. I have been reading wikipedia for a long time, a very long time. I have noticed its popularity go up greatly by each year that goes by. I was at the time very interested in how so many people come together to write such a large encyclopedia with no thought of personal gain. I actually caught a lot of vandalism, which I thought was very sad, and now you know why I do my daily vandalism reverting. All This interested me greatly, enough to actually log in. When I was a newcomer I made plenty of large mistakes too much to name, but I have overcome such mistakes to be where I am now. Arjun 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Do you think there are any problems with Wikipedia or the way it is run? If so, what do you think is the solution? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 17:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, this must be a world record that I took this long to answer a question! Sorry I saw it but I was very busy and then I forgot :(. For starters "no" I don't see any large problems that would greatly hurt wikipedia. As I stated above I feel that it is the opposite. I think however that there are some minor probs such as wheel wars between admins and edit wars between editors, editors assuming bad faith. But these can all be avoided with a simple discussion. Recently I have had editors at my doorstop about edit wars and disputes and so far each one is over just because I calmly told the user(s) just simply how things work around here. I think that the answer to most of every problem here on wikipedia is simple discussion without losing civility. As discussion results in FA's too you know :). So that is my feeling, obviously there are going to be some that are drastically different from mine, but that is just the way I feel. Arjun 04:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)