Wikipedia:Editor review/Addihockey10

Addihockey10 (talk · contribs · count) I would like to be reviewed because I am thinking of nominating myself for adminship in a while (about 7,500 edits) and I would like to know what I could improve/work on before I nominate myself. --Addihockey ^(t/c) 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
Well, my main contributions have been with Huggle when I revert vandalism. On occasion I edit with AWB. Otherwise I edit with Huggle.
Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past (please note that this does not refer to (edit conflict)) 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?
My user page has been vandalized many times, I wish that it wouldn't happen but I can't necessarily prevent that. I dealt with it by not giving the vandal the reaction he wanted, I didn't blab on his talk page about how it made me feel bad, I just breezily gave him a warning. I don't intend to change that, however if I discover a better way of dealing with it I will change it accordingly.

Reviews

Sorry about the delay in getting here. I looked at a lot of good, constructive work that you have done, but I think that this [1] sums up my opinion. You explained everything concisely, and most important, pleasantly. I see a good intentioned, dedicated "Wikipedian." I don't see any lolling around in process wonkery; I don't see any evidence of anything that would prevent me from supporting you for sysop. However, what really impresses me are editors that add new content to the knowledge base, so get busy and write us all a nice article! Good luck, and feel free to post me on anything that you think we could collaborate on together. "We strive together, for the greater good." Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that you would go for an RfA in the near future when you have more edits. If I totally ignored your edit count, but still looking at your contributions, I would probably say (here is my rfa criteria) Weak Oppose. The reason I would say this is that, although you have very worthwhile contributions and have really helped out Wikipedia (thanks for that work doing so), the percentages of automated edits is high. I am sort of "anti-automated" and others will still oppose you just because of the automated edits. What people want in RfA, to my knowledge, is at least 3,000 manual edits to the mainspace. If you lay off of Huggle for a while, you won't have a problem passing. Otherwise, you might fail, or be extremely close. Other than that, Thanks for all of your contributions again. Regards, smithers - talk 01:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]