Wikipedia:Editor review/Timmeh (2)

Timmeh[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Timmeh (talk · contribs · count) Hello reviewers. I'm Timmeh, but you can call me Tim, and I'm requesting some reviews because it's been about three months since my last editor review. Mainly, I'd like some input on the issues that gave me a lot of opposes in my RfA, which failed about a month and a half ago. These include my involvement in the DougsTech discussions, and my AfD participation. I was criticized for being heavy-handed and causing excessive drama during the DougsTech discussions and for making careless AfD comments, such as "Delete per nom". I'd mainly like to see how (and if) I've improved in those areas, so that I have an idea if another adminship run in about two months would be worth it. Tim meh 22:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Hey Timmeh (nice username heh). Dealing with your contributions, they are good, with a wide variety of edits over a big area. Most of your edits tend to be in articles (70%+) which is good, however, you may want to get involved with other areas which is can see you are already doing (seen you in RFA). Regarding edit summaries, they seem to be ok generally, however I have noticed that some edits have no edit summary or just a non informative 1 letter summary, which is difficult to understand. However this is only minor and only more consistency is needed in this. Onto conflicts, it seems you have learnt from your mistake relating to DougsTech, which is great (all RFA people like to see that, one is just going with a similar story, and it seems likely to pass) and I like the way you deal with them now in your calm manner. Your GA's (and your reviewing of them) are very good and I like the way you have a goal in mind, always helps. Your AFD's have improved significantly, and I like you providing links to your searches and it seems you now certainly spend some time and effort reviewing them, more so than when your previous RFA was done.

Overall score: 9 out of 10.

Hope this review has helped and hope to see you pass that RFA! Regards. Athe Weatherman 13:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think those one-letter edit summaries you're seeing are my responses in talk pages. The "r" is just a shorthand way of saying "responding" or "replying" and "q" means "question". I only do that on talk pages, so I don't think it'll cause any problems. Also, the article edit percentage is actually around 63%, I believe, and if you look at my last 1000 edits, it's only about 52%, but I admit I do need to participate in more Wikipedia-space areas, as Shereth pointed out. Thanks for the quick review and the well wishes! Tim meh (review me) 15:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I see what you mean now, about the edit summaries, my misunderstanding heh. Also thanks for the response to the question, which I found to be very informative. Best Wishes. Athe Weatherman 18:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a little time to give your contributions a review and I have to say that things are looking good. There is a good, solid foundation of mainspace contributions that are spread over a wide variety of topics, and that's always a plus (much better than I do recently, I must say). I am also pleased to see that they are not merely minor grammatical fixes, and more pleased to see that there is a healthy percentage of them that are not script-assisted types of edits, it shows that you are actually taking the time to make thoughtful, purposed edits. I'm also seeing actual discussion going on in user talk pages rather than the standard set of welcomes/warnings and the like, which creates confidence that real skill and ability in cooperation and collaboration, an extremely important ability on a collaborative site like Wikipedia. I am also seeing the same spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia space discussions. I am seeing a pretty strong tilt toward AfD, which is by no means a bad thing, and RfA. You may want to expand your participation into other Wikipedia-space areas, particularly if you are interested in submitting yourself for your own RfA again in the near future, if only to broaden your horizons and demonstrate that you have familiarity with other policy-related discussions. I would also be cautious about not seeming overly interested in the RfA process itself (as some other editors will view this as being an overt interest in adminship) and again, branch out into other areas of discussion on the project. These are, by no means, any kind of requirements, but from the narrow perspective of someone who is intersted in another go at adminship, breadth of experience is often every bit as useful as depth of experience. In any event, it looks like most of the issues that have come up before have been largely addressed and I encourage you to continue making the improvements you have made, and by all means, to continue your valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. Shereth 14:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do a review, Shereth. I'll try to expand my participation into other Wikipedia-space areas. Would you have any particular suggestions as to what areas could use some extra help from a non-admin? Tim meh (review me) 15:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
The majority of my edits are reverting vandalism and doing copyediting, especially MoS fixes. However, I've also done a fair amount of article building. I have significantly contributed to five GAs (one which I hope to make an FA), and I've put a lot of work into United States presidential election, 2008, which I hope to eventually nominate at GAN. Some people also have commended my dozen or so GA reviews.
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?
The biggest dispute I've been in is probably the DougsTech debacle, but I'd like to put that behind me. With my other conflicts, I've dealt with them as civilly and calmly as possible. I always try to work toward attaining consensus in disputes over content, and I've recently reported an editor at the edit warring noticeboard as a result of edit warring over content. The IP was blocked, but the dispute was eventually resolved peacefully with the IP being satisfied with a compromise.
In your own words, can you describe what you have done to address the issues that came up at your recent AfD? If you have any diffs to show specific examples that'd be great, but not necessary. Shereth 19:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll assume you mean my recent RfA. Well, regarding the concerns brought up about my AfD participation, I've put a lot more researching into each AfD I decide to comment on than I used to. I've also tried to give more detailed explanations of my !vote at AfDs. You can see the list and look at them for yourself here. About the DougsTech concerns, I've definitely tried to avoid unnecessary drama since then, not involving myself in big drama-filled disputes and only commenting on the administrator noticeboards when necessary. As you can see from my answer to question 2, I've recently become involved in disputes which I have taken appropriate actions to dissolve and was even able to resolve peacefully (with the help of some other editors), with all parties satisfied. I've also given advice on resolving a dispute. I hope that answered your question adequately.
(Optional) I see you would like to go for an RFA, if so, then what areas are you thinking of going into? Athe Weatherman 13:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly the same areas I wanted to go into when I ran in June. These are primarily AfD and RfPP, although I do have some experience at AIV and a little experience in dealing with edit wars. WP:CSD is of interest to me, but I apparently had some bad taggings back in March (nothing specific was really pointed out to me) and I haven't done much in the way of CSD tagging since then. If I do get involved in speedy deletions, I'd be very cautious going into it.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.