Wikipedia:Editor review/WBOSITG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] WBOSITG

WBOSITG (talk · contribs) Hello there, and thanks for taking the time to read this editor review. I am looking for a detailed - or brief, I'm not picky - insight into my editing, as I would hopefully aim for adminship if I get a nom (hmmm?). I have recently discovered the joy of vandal fighting, and I have 50+ reports to AIV, many of which are successful. I help at the helpdesk from time to time, although I'm making less of a habit of it. Oh and vandals love me - 29 counts of it on my userpage has to be a good sign... WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN aka john lennon 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE keep Luis Barroso's status as studying a PhD in Law - otherwise if you find this trivial or unimportant, delete the other entry that he is studying a Masters in European Political Economy - It is wrong.

Reviews

  • Hi! I think I first noticed you Decemberish when !voting on an WP:RFA (and who could miss your sig). Anyway, I have looked back through your last several thousand edits which seem to be mostly vandal fighting. You obviously have that figured out... Reverts, warnings, AIV reports all well executed. Great job. You are highly involved in Wikipedia which I think is admirable; in general, your edits are quite diverse and span many namespaces. Going back earlier in your contribs, I start to see a pattern - you seem to go through various phases, like your clean up and fixing phase with AWB, welcoming users, exploring various wikiprojects and so on. In a very short time you have become highly experienced and have made an enormous quantity of edits that have certainly benefited Wikipedia. You should be very proud of your work. (BTW - I'd support you on an RfA). κaτaʟavenoTC 02:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not support this user being an admin. He treated me rudely, agressively reverted my edits, which where good edits, made in good faith, but which he labeled "vandalism." Having him as an admin would turn off casual wikipedia editors like myself who like use it as a reference and sometimes make minor corrections and improvements. 68.101.152.153 (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Review by Milk's Favorite Cookie

First off, WBOSITG, you're a great editor! But here are some thing I want to point out:

  • The one Bad Part to point out :(
    • Balance of Edits You, (at least), last 4000 edits, respectably, have been reverting vandalism using Huggle. Oh, yeah, it's addictive, (personal expereince) but I would suggest a balance of edits, not always reverting vandalism, but some article work as well.
  • The Good Parts
    • Edit Summary Usage I see you have perfect edit summary usage for the last 2 months - Keep it up.
    • Adoptions You have adopted several users.
    • WP:AFC Your major help there removing the backlog. Nice! However, avoid mistakes like these.
      • Other than that you are a great editor! Keep it up! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Before I go any further, let me tell you that you have an awesome username (and sig) ;-). Now that I've gotten that out of the way, let's begin. Firstly, excellent edit summary usage (100% major and minor), which is a good start. Keep up the reverting work, but do keep in mind that it is important to keep yourself busy with other stuff too. One thing they're gonna get you for though, if you choose to go for an RfA anytime soon, is your lack of experience - you have 10,000 edits, which is more than enough, however, you need a couple more months of experience, as you've only been truly active for maybe 4 months, so be sure to maintain a consistent edit rate throughout the next few months. I'd be more than happy to nominate you in a few month's time. Keep up the good work! tim.bounceback 00:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
  • Oh, jeez, sorry, for some reason I thought you had already recently passed an RfA, that's why I left you that message that was like, "so, ya wanna take down your ER? Huh? Huh?" Now I feel like a jerk. (Although, of course, there's no reason admins shouldn't be subject to review too. It's just that sometimes folks want an ER leading up to an RfA). Anyways, I'm glad you reposted, gimme a poke in a while if you need more reviewing. delldot on a public computer talk 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Hmmm. Tricky one. Vandal spying is probably the main reason for being here, although I am very pleased about the English football Portal which I created and maintain. I am also on a long-term drive to get Aberdeen Grammar School to GA and then FA status.
  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?
    As with Milk's Favorite Cookie below, I too had trouble with Karaku, for all of the reasons he listed (I am so lazy XD). I also had trouble with Zipgun, who seemed to think that only he was right. He violated 3RR and was then blocked.

This user has been more than willing to help me, and has in some ways gone out of his way to do this. And from where I'm standing he's a damn good editor, one of the best i've had the pleasure of working with. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)