Wikipedia:Editor review/MWOAP

MWOAP

MWOAP (talk · contribs · count) I am thinking about adminship, but know I am not there yet. I would just like to know how users see me so far, so I can become a better editor and hopefully a better admin. MWOAP (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
My Contribs primarily involve reverting vandalism & I try really hard to keep the Category:Pages with missing references list to below the backlog status. I have also tired a few on Category:Articles to be split & Category:Copied and Pasted Articles and Sections. I also keep a watch on a lot of Star Trek articles. Also, just recently, with the help of User:Fetchcomms I have made my first template (Template:Tech Issue).
Have you been in any disputes 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 probally a few minor disputes that I don't remember. But if I ever get mad, I walk away from the situation for a while, and then come back to it all calm. I plan to get into the discussions on Articles for Deletion today.

Reviews

Hi MWOAP here's my review (I'm doing it now, as you have relatively few contributions so far, so it won't take too long!)

User conduct

Edit summaries: 100% on major edits, 98% on minor edits. Most of the non-automated ones are brief but explain what has been done.
Constructive comments on talk pages:The comments that you leave on article talk pages are constructive and geared towards making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. They may be little things ("does anyone object if I remove xyz tag, because ....") - but those help tidy up Wikipedia, which is important!
Attitude towards others: Your communications seem to be considerate and helpful - and to the point!

Edits

Automated Edits: A quarter of your edits are automated, using TWINKLE, AWB and FRIENDLY. I didn't see any problems here.
Article vs non-article: About half of your edits are to articles, with a further 12% to article talk space and about 20% to user talk.

RfA

I'm only going to make one recommendation here: get more involved with admin-type areas, such as more Articles for deletion, more Speedy Deletion tagging, some WP:AN/WP:ANI/WP:RFA edits. These are areas where you will show your understanding of the policies, and that you can explain (and justify) yourself.

Summary

You seem to be doing a good job, but as you said, you are not yet ready to think about adminship, in my opinion. Keep up the good work that you are doing, and see what happens! Oh, by the way, when/if you ever go for an RfA, one question I'm sure you are going to get asked is why do you think there should be mandatory registration - As the essay Wikipedia:IPs are human too says, although 80% of all vandalism is caused by IP editors, 80% of all edits made by IPs are not vandalism (i.e. that 20% of all vandalism is caused by registered editors, and 20% of IP edits are vandalism) - and how does this fit in with Wikipedia:Assume good faith?

Anyway, I hope that this review is helpful - although I have noted that you will not be on Wikipedia for an unspecified period of time - however, assuming that you will still be around until 2100EDT (0200UTC), then you should hopefully catch this before you are away! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]