Wikipedia:Editor review/TonyTheTiger

TonyTheTiger

TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) Failed WP:RFA in Dec at about 5500 edits (see here. Now have about 9500 edits. Since last RFA had been diligent at WP:NPP, WP:AFD, WP:CFD for first 3000 edits. One weakness that arose during the RFA was lack of WP space experience. I have resuscitated CHICOTW. I have also attempted to pursue excellence by contributing hundreds of edits to articles that I started that I hope will succeed as WP:FAC (Campbell's Soup Cans) and WP:FLC (List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry). I had been considering renominating myself after 3000 edits. However, I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Daniel.Bryant_2 and decided I had a lot to learn. Have since begun to expand horizons to CAT:RFU. I have recently started working with Category:Unassessed biography articles This process has alerted me to the fact that I spend a great deal of time on mid and low priority articles. I do feel these articles were needed, but have to reassess my time apportionment given my new understanding of priority. TonyTheTiger 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

• I will make a start on this review, and come back and complete in a while. One of the main items of concern in the previous RfA, is lack of mainspace edits. Now I am glad to see that this has rocketed, but you are likely to find two further issues here in future RfAs. 1. Lack of article talk page discussions. Considering the number of article edits this is very low - suggesting that you do not get involved in a lot of discussion on article improvement (and it is not because the talk is going on at Wikipedia talk as that is low too). The concern will be that you may not have the skills in dealing with others, so may struggle in as an Admin in a conflict situation (which I am sure there will be plenty of). 2. (much less important) Although a large number of mainspace edits, they are concentrated on a small number of articles, some maybe concerned that there is a lack of depth in you editing therefore - I personally do not think this is a big deal. Cheers Lethaniol 17:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This will be my final comment in this review. If you wish to ask me a specific question on my talk page, I will be happy to answer. Looking over your last500 contributions, you do not seem to get into much conflict/discussion (most tall page edits seem mostly administrative like). Now this is great, but in any future RfA people will want to know how you will deal with difficult situations. So might be an idea to dig up some examples where you have dealt well in such times. Cheers Lethaniol 00:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

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

Questions

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

   I am quite please with the progress of CHICOTW. It was basically a dead COTW before I revamped it. We have taken several undeveloped and underdeveloped pages and turned them into good resources. We have even generated 2 WP:GAs I am also pleased with the development of Campbell's Soup Cans and List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry. I hope to bring them both to WP:FC status.

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?

   I have had no significant dustups since my last RFA. I guess the closest was attempting to clarify why I could not get a block on a repeat offender just because I caught him 3 hours after the occurrance. The text can be seen on my page at User_talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive_7#Barry_Bonds_et_al_vandalism and at User_talk:TigerShark#Barry_Bonds_et_al_vandalism. He got blocked 3 days later. I also got range blocked from the Chicago Apple Store last week. I think my experience has help me to manage my contributions in a way that has kept me out of any more serious conflicts.