Wikipedia:Editor review/The Random Editor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Random Editor

The Random Editor (talk · contribs) Hello and welcome to my first editor review. My username on wikipedia is "The Random Editor", though I often go by Random. I joined wikipedia back in the end of March, and since then have accumulated just over 2000 edits. I have been very active in Recent changes patrol, in Articles for deletion, created a few Navigational templates, and have fixed typos and grammer. Recently, I have become more invovled at the Help desk and Reference desk. I hope to become and admin several months down the road, and would appreciate advice. Random Say it here! 14:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hello. From your edits I can see that you are a very active vandal fighter. I can also see that you participate a lot at AfD. I was also impressed by your excellent edit summary usage. I really have nothing to say to you except that you continue the excellent work and maybe become more active in the Wikiprojects you are part of. As to your desire to become an admin, I suggest you wait until you have at least 6 months of experience. I'm sure you know that it's really hard these days for users with less experience than that to get promoted. When you think you're ready to become an admin, I suggest you check out Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Personally, I suggest you ask User:Husond, as I have seen his work coaching other users, and I believe it is very effective. Thank you. Happy editing! Yours truly, Boricuaeddie Spread the love! 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Hah! :-) Húsönd 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello Random. Here's my quick review. You seem to be doing very well, and I antecipate a most successful RFA in a couple of months. You've been fighting some vandalism, but I recommend stepping that up. Perhaps Vandalproof could assist you. You have good participation in WP:XFD and WP:RFA. You are friendly and communicative, and that's a big plus. My recommendation for the moment would be getting more involved in actual encyclopedia building, as some users feel uncomfortable in supporting admin candidates when they seem to have given little contribution to the actual growth of Wikipedia. Your talk space count is also very low, which corroborates the latter. Getting involved in WP:RM discussions would certainly help. Overall, you're a very promising editor. Keep up the good work! Húsönd 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello. I've spoken to you before (though you won't have realised), and I can honestly say I like your work here. However, I must say I positively despise your signature, at an amazingly round number of 500 characters (including spaces), and the style hack you've employed to paste a false name onto the bar at the top of your userpage (though I've seen far worse). I'm also confused as to why your userpage is essentially just a transclusion of another page. Please keep up the good work, and please change your signature. --Deskana (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I feel as though your signature is somewhat distracting. Good work at RfA. --wpktsfs 20:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, from what I've seen of you, you are a decent, civil, and hardworking editor. You do a lot of good work here, which I hope you will continue. I see your name often on RfAs, so that's a good sign, and you always give a good rationale in your supports/opposes/neutrals. You're involved in XfDs weel, another good thing.
However, I do have a big piece of important advice for you: I've noticed that of your last 500 edits to the mainspace, almost all of them have been pop-up assisted reverts. Now, there is nothing wrong at all with being a vandal-fighter, if you're thinking of running for adminship it the next month or so, this will not go down too well, and you would most likely receive a lot of oppostion. I strongly suggest doing some direct article-work, whether it's adding content, improving existing content, fixing/adding sources, or even just doing formatting and manual of style fixes. At the moment, the article you have the most edits to is Corporate title, with only 13 edits. While that doesn't bother me, a lot of users have editcountitis, and don't like seeing that low a figure for your most edited article.
On the bright side, combined you have nearly a hundred portal and portal talk edits, as well as a few edits to templates, images, and categories. You have over 1700 mainspace edits, and close to 700 Wikipedia-space edits, so those are good things. As mentioned above, you have perfect edit summary usage, so that's worth noting.
I really hope I didn't sound harsh! Please tell me if I did; I only want to help you, not criticize; after all, you do a lot of great work. If you have any questions about my review, please ask them. Acalamari 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I'm particularly proud of all my vandalism fighting efforts. The two templates I have created, Template:Federal Reserve System and Template:Central Bank, I feel are quite good. Also, I'm quite pleased with all my typo fixing. In addition, when I help user, it is always very rewarding.
  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?
    Yes, I have been in situations of that nature. I felt that the user The way, the truth, and the life, username was sort of a violation of policy. I informed the user of my beliefs and we both requested comments. The result was that he got to keep his username. Even so, he has been invovled in numerous controversial situations, and even blocked once. Also, just the pressure of vandal fighting some times gets to me. When that happens, I just sit back and take a break.


Additional Questions from Dfrg.msc:

Borrowed from Glen (talk · contribs), I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.

Speedy Delete or not:

  1. CSD1 Delete - under A1 and also A7.
  2. CSD2 Keep - Mistake. There is already a article for that subject. Voip.com. Blank and redirect page to main article.
  3. CSD3 Delete - under A1 and also G11
  4. CSD4 Delete - under A1 and also G1
  5. CSD5 Nom - It appears to fail WP:MUSIC, so I would propose a WP:AFD.

Vandalism or or not:

  1. [1] Unsourced - The edit is unsourced, and potentially POV.
  2. [2] Vandalism - Nonsense.
  3. [3] Vandalism - Obvious vandalism.
  4. [4] Revert - It is a reversion of vandalism. No need to change.
  5. [5] Test - I would say it was a unhelpful test. Maybe a MOS violation.
  6. [6] Unsourced - The edit is unsourced, and potentially POV.

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional questions by OhanaUnited This question prepares for your RfA. What policy do you think Wikipedia should modify to provide a better editing environment? State your reasons as well. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A: I don't really know if this would help the editing environment that much, but it certainly would help partially eliminate sockpuppetry. The modification of would be a modification both to Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. The new addition would simply allow for a ACB (account creation block) to be enforced temporarily upon users if a a dispute was getting to heated. This would help to prevent sockpuppets being created to sway a discussion one way or the other. I understand this to a point would violate WP:AGF, but I think it would help to alleviate the problem. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, this answer looks really good. I'm not expecting a detailed answer at first, but seems like you gave me a more than satisifactory answer. Just hope that the new "account creation block" will not lead to more heated discussion :P OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)