Wikipedia:Editor review/Milk's Favorite Cookie 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Milk's Favorite Cookie

Milk's Favorite Cookie (talk · contribs) Hi all. I thought I should do 1 final ER, before I run for adminship around March 15h. I just want to find out my weaknesses and improve them before the RFA. I have piled up over 20,000 edits, and compiled over 250 AIV reports. Finally, I have maintained 100% edit summary usage for the last 2 months, and 100% as of now through March. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Mr. Cookie - I keep seeing you EVERYWHERE so I could not resist making a review for you. All I can really say is, you are one excellent user! Just one thing though: you revert a lot of vandalism, which is great! Looking over your edits to articles, while you've done a lot of article work in the past, I don't see a lot of it in your latest contributions. While vandal fighting is very useful, it can help you keep "in touch" with the reason why we are here by writing articles.

Additionally, according to Wannabe Kate's tool, you made 8669 edits in February. Sometimes, I believe there is a limit to the time you should give to editing Wikipedia. I don't know about your social life, or your health, but I can't imagine either to be that great. It isn't up to me to tell you to be careful with the time you spend on the computer, but as you're looking for advice here, I'll tell you it is OK to do something other than edit Wikipedia :) In addition, you edit so much, but I don't want you to burn out as you're a very valuable member of our community :)

I know very well that you're going up for RfA. How? Your constant messages over several talkpages that are on my watchlist (and of course after looking through your contributions). I am not a big fan of RfA "planning". It makes it seem to me that you edit for the sole purpose of becoming an admin. That isn't why we are here, and trust me, it's not so much greater being an admin (though it is highly useful :))

In conclusion, you are a fantastic editor, but I think you should work on more articles, and watch the time you spend editing. And enough with the RfA planning chitchat :) Majorly (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

From Dlohcierekim

Dear Milk,
  • This is a summary of my review of your edits. I have reviewed Wikipedia:Editor review/Milk's Favorite Cookie. Mostly I agree with Pedro's assessment. I would vote support, but my standards are not as stringent as some. You will need to show you have addressed Yuprik's and Deldot's concerns. You might want to postpone till April to allow time to deal with possible Opposes.
  • You've plenty of of edits in admin related areas. You've done article building. (I like 30,000 bytes worth of contribs.) The emphasis is on the negative because RfA is a harrowing experience, and these are things opposers are likely to address.
  • Edit count is great, but so many edits in so short a period of time may actually work against you-- as "thoughtless, automatic, bot-like edits."
  • I saw a lot of succesfully tagged CSD's. Which is good. Not a deal breaker, but it would be good to try to notify each article creator of the tagging.
  • I stay away from this hornest's nest, mostly because I got dinged in my RfA for writing, "delete per nom." Some feel this indicates automatic voting rather than thoughtfully considering each case.
  • I saw a lot of successful AIV reports. This one was not. I see where Deldot felt your were reporting too soon.
  • Some of the articles you list as created have been redirected or are still garbled translations. Some that you list I cannot find that you created. You will want to get those taken care of before your RfA.
  • Adminship inevitably leads to conflict. You will want to be able to verbalise/demonstrate understanding of Dispute Resolution.

Hope this helps. Looking forward to your RfA Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I would recommend reading Majorly's review as I agree with a majority (heh) of what he said. I also agree with delldot from last month, I have seen a few reports from you on AIV where I did not make the block because I either felt the user was inactive or was not warned sufficiently. With vandal fighting and blocking, please remember that the goal is to get the user to stop their disruptive behavior and only issue a block when it is apparent they have no interest in doing so. Besides that, your contributions seem to be solid. Best of luck, SorryGuy  Talk  03:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You are certainly a committed editor and have made an extraordinary number of edits in a very short time. True, many of those edits are automated, like the AWB redirects, but there is diversity, too. I dare say that you could be characterized as the type of editor who cleans up or fixes articles rather than writes them. Not that you do not add good content to articles, you do, but I think that your strength lies more in the administrative side than the creation side. So, I believe your future is as an admin. Take care of Dlohcierekim's excellent suggestions and you'll probably be very successful. κaτaʟavenoTC 02:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Pedro

Sorry it's taken me a couple of days to get back to you. I hope you find the feedback from the three trusted editors above of use. They are all experienced at RfA and have given great input. I would mostly echo the concerns about "RfA Planning". As Majorly rightly says editing just for adminship is a big no no - and will be incredibly unrewarding when you achieve it - that's what No Big Deal is about. I'm liking most of what I see. I'm still concerned on "burn-out" but it's up to you how often you edit! I think on balance that you having admin buttons would be a net positive. But I'm only one editor. Best of luck when you go for it! Pedro :  Chat  16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from iMatthew I have to agree with all of the above comments. You are an excellent editor and nobody can deny that you work very hard. Whenever I see you around, you are always helping other users, whether it's helping them solve an issue with another editor, or it's created a logo of their name. Keep up the good work MFC! iMatthew 2008 10:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Comments

  • View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
  • So can we archive your review from earlier this der, last month? delldot talk 03:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the quick reply on my talk page. Duly archived. delldot talk 03:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    My best contributions are probably my anti vandalism fight. Article wise, I have added a great deal to House of Hohenstaufen, and to Earl Johnson (baseball). Furthermore, I have added much to Boston Celtics, making it one step closer to FA. I also helped get Heuschrecke 10 to a GA.- Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:50, 2 March 2008 (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? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Yes. Although I was hoping not to, I got in a minor one. This user, seemed to be never showing good faith, and never being civil. She violated the 3 revert rule several times, and was obviously blocked for that. And, to make matters worse: removing 3RR warnings, and not showing good faith in edit summaries. Other than that, I have not been in any other edit conflicts. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)