Wikipedia:Editor review/Cbrown1023

User:Cbrown1023

Cbrown1023 (talk · contribs) In the future, I would like to become an administator. Right now, I'd like to know what types of things I'm doing correctly, what I'm not, and on what I need to improve.

I joined Wikipedia in March 2006 and I have almost 14,670 edits (all edit counts are as of 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)). About 2500 of them are in the article namespace and almost 10,000 of them are in the talk namespace (from tagging and assessing articles). I also have 675 edits in the user talk namespace.

Thanks for any and all feedback that I receive. Cbrown1023 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

• Wow. That is an incredible amount of edits in the past few months. Oh yeah, almost got carried away- I am Jcam and this is my first review so feel free to review my review, and perhaps consider the source. Anyway, you say your goal is to become an administrator- I am a frequent voter there and I know what some of the tougher voters "nit-pick" about, so we'll go with that. For the record, if nominated today, you would get my vote. But here are what some would say if you had an Rfa today:
  • As you mentioned, 2/3 of your edits have been in talk(article, user, etc). I've seen many Rfa voters complain about a user who has too much in talk and not enough in article namespace. You do have over 2000 edits there which should deflect much of that, although I could see some opposes anyway.
  • Your vandal fighting skills are good.
  • Your edit summary usage has got much better, although a picky voter could look through the history and see that at one time, you used them sparingly or not at all.
  • One of the things which you will likely find opposition about is a lack of "quality" edits. A large chunk of the most 1000 recent main namespace edits have been redirects, adding categories, adding headings, etc. The "FA" crowd in Rfa are not going to like that very much. You might want to work on finding that one article which will be your baby (keeping in mind, of course WP:OWN.
  • Looking at your WP namespace edits, I see a lot of WikiProject edits, which is good. You have experience with images. And you definitely have much experience with categories.
  • You certainly like to "talk" alot and it's good to contribute to talk pages. One thing I haven't been able to find is much in the way of substantial "talk" with users (other than the standard "welcome" template. Try to interact with users a little bit more- and I don't mean shoot the you know what. Read an article and if you see deficiencies or a whole section lacking(even if it's an area you know little about), say so on the article talk page. If you see a controversial page in which an author shows POV, revert the offending part, leave a message on the author's page, and hammer it out with them(remaining civil of course). If you see sources weren't cited, bring it up to the attention of the author.
  • Contribute to Rfa and Afd. These are a good way to interact with your fellow wikipedians.
  • It will likely be mentioned that you have only been active for three months so many will say "too new." A couple more months of good editing will certainly shut up the "too new" critics.
• Closing: What I would recommend: slow down on the edit counts. Make it your goal in November to do no more than 2000 edits. Sure, you can continue some of the maintenance edits you'e been doing, just slow them down. Get involved in some Rfa's and Afd's. Find a few articles to work on (things you're interested in) and add to them substantially. You have the numbers, you just need the quality edits to help you out and then you will be a shoo-in for admin. I hope this helped. Feel free to contact me or leave a message on my talk page.

Jcam 23:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hello there Cbrown1023, how are you doing? Here are some thoughts:

  • I agree with Jcam, you have an incredible amount of edits, considering the time you have spent here. Especially the amount of talk edits. Looking at Wannabe Kate result, most of your contributions are done in the last three months. Sometimes, users in the Requests for adminship page will request experience in time, and not in edit count (in example, most consider having 2000 edits in the last five months better than having one month with 10,000 edits).
  • Checking your five last image upload, I notice you don't write a fair use rationale in the ones tagged as fair use. You should consider doing so from now on, and as time permits, write the rationale for previous images. Also, I tagged Image:Flipped.jpg with {{fair use reduce}} as it is too big for Wikipedia (if fair use, only upload as big as necessary for the article).
  • As a WikiGnome, I can understand the high amount of maintenance edits. Out of your last 10,000 edits, I agree with Jcam in that most of them are not necessary for Adminship. I can count (some numbers can be slightly off): 250 article sorting, 228 welcome messages, 2270 {{film}} tags and 238 category tags. I am assuming the almost 5700 edits you have with AWB are maintenance ones. Unluckily, when presenting yourself to a RFA, most consider your interaction with vandals and how you work in the Wikipedia namespace, especially with administrator-like tasks. In these last 10,000 edits, you don't have Articles for deletion edits, three Templates for deletion, one for Categories for deletion, and none for redirects.
  • As a "trivia", I find it curious that you have marked 14 edits as minor out of your last 10,000 ones. Mathbot had to retrieve 6 times in order to find enough minor edits to calculate your percentage.
  • As you can imagine, it is pretty hard to get solid data when the user has so many edits, especially if there is not a "standard" way of informing in an edit summary that you are warning a user. I count 10 "test" in user talks, and 28 welcomeip. Assuming all of them are warnings, then you have done a pretty good amount considering it covers a month, but due your extremely high amount of edits, they appear as insignificant. In this last month, you did not report to Administrator intervention against vandalism, nor Requests for page protection. And only participated in Plunge's request for adminship. This way people is not able to correctly measure when you ask for administrator to handle a vandal, nor when you consider a page has been defaced enough times to ask for protection, nor what you consider an article to be deleted from Wikipedia.

  Closing, you are doing great! This is how a WikiGnome should work, fixing and sorting articles, keeping articles tags updated, etc. However, if you want to become an administrator, you will have to leave these tasks and begin patrolling both new users, new articles and recent changes to catch vandals more often, participate more in the different deletion debates, and spend some time in the requests for adminship, to see what others say about candidates. Give your opinion, and don't be afraid of "missing the mark". You learn by doing mistakes, and mistakes as editor are easily corrected. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 22:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

• Thanks for helping with Wikipedia:Peer review/Web operating system/archive1. - JohnPritchard 11:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Of my contributions to Wikipedia, I am very pleased with my work for various WikiProjects. I have assessed many articles on their quality (class) and added the project's banners to many talk pages. Two of the reasons why I'm pleased with this is because it took so long to do it and it makes up most of my work.

   I have also been helping recently with patrolling the recent changes and the new pages. My work here has allowed me to welcome many new users, nominate pages for deletion, and revert vanadalism.

3. 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 had many conflicts in editing in the past. However, the ones that I can think of have all ended peacefully. Very few have caused me stress, but they helped me learn how to deal with it in the future.

   In future disputes, I will probably go about them the same way. I will try to be civil, watch my tone, and make sure that what I write is not interpreted negatively (this has happened before even when I didn't write it that way).

   Any passed disputes can be found in my achive at User talk:Cbrown1023/Archive 1.