Wikipedia:Editor review/BrendelSignature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:BrendelSignature

BrendelSignature (talk · contribs) In the near future I would like to run for adminship. Additionally I would also like to know how I am doing and will appreciate any input you might have. If you beleive I could be doing something better, please let me know so I can make the according improvements. Thank you. Signature^brendel 05:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

• · j e r s y k o talk ·'s review: based on your relative calm under intense pressure in the American (ethnic group) conflict from a couple months ago, and judging from your other contributions, I would happily support your RFA. You kept a relatively level head when an editor was essentially attacking your heritage for no reason other than spite over and over. Grace under pressure is possibly the most crucial quality for an effective editor.

• Hello there, BrendelSignature. Here are some thoughts I hope you will find useful. I will consider your last 5,000 edits, which cover your last 5 months at Wikipedia.

  • First of all, checking your user page I notice several things: You have had a very good participation creating articles and taking them into Good article status. Also, the fact that you had spent time expanding articles means that you have the community sense that is needed in editors and administrators, where nobody owns articles and, at the same time, everybody shares the responsibility of improving them.
  • However, I also notice in your user page a good amount of editcountitis. Personally, I don't really have problems with that, but some editors may consider that you spend a good amount of your time gathering statistics of yourself (especially because of Image:My edits as of October 2006.jpg). I remember seeing people oppose nominations because the candidate had changed his editcountitis box very often.
  • A quick review of your statistics indicates you have spent over 400 edits in Lincoln Town Car. That is an incredible amount (most users would not spend that amount of time and edit in an article, not even when self created), and it is good to see you have made it a good one. In 10 different articles you have spent 100 edits or more, and they account for 1820 edits, or 35% of your edits in the mainspace. I can make two conclusions: you are a perfectionist in topics that you do like and enjoy, but that you appear to be limited exclusively in those topics. Note that this is not something bad, I personally spend a lot of time in fantasy articles, and would be bored if I were to write about Argentinian politics. I guess you have already noticed that, though!
  • I am a bit curious about your usernames. As explained, User:Brendel can be someone else. If you did not create the account, nor activate an email nor remember its password, why you would redirect it to your own page? Until a username purge is ran, I believe it is safe to assume someone else registered the account but never used it. Also, there are still some old signatures around, you can change them to your current one if you want. Finally, you should request an administrator to merge your old User page history with your current one. Although it is not necessary, it will be useful for people to learn how you have modified your userpage (even if they might be used by those who don't like editcountitis).
  • I like the fact you have contributed many free images. Some may be moved by commons administrators there someday, which will help the whole Wikipedia project.
  • I divide administrators in two classes: those working with articles and those working with people. The ones taking care of articles close AFD discussions, delete speedy tagged elements, protect articles, etc. However, your participation in AFDs is pretty small, just 5 during October, and although more in September, most of your edits were in a single AFD. Participating in these discussions (and templates and categories) will help others to learn which judgement (inclusionist or exclusionist, mergist or m:deletionist, etc) you apply. You don't have reports at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which is one of the means to contact these administrators. As for the other class, the ones focused on user interaction, you have only one edit at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and although there appears to be a good amount of user talk, you are not focused on patrolling. This reversion of an apparent harmless test was answered with a pretty harsh warning that gave no advice as to where to test (as we should assume good faith, we could think he was testing this "wiki" thing, and considering it was his only contribution, leading him to the sandbox or by using a {{test}} would have been enough). When I say harsh, I mean that it is the equivalent to giving him a {{test3}} warning. Also, this edit, which can be considered misinformation (like a {{verror}}), and only edit in the day from that IP, was answered with a pretty hard warning. He was warned on September 15, September 19 and October 26, yet you pointed out that it was his third warning. This may mislead him to believe that warnings are accumulative over time, which is not true.
  • It is good to see you have congratulated 70.108.251.128 for his contributions! I would suggest that everytime you post a first message in an IP, being it a warning or a congratulation, use the {{welcomeip}} message to feel him welcomed. Some may realize they had been wrong and change their behaviour, while others will know the community acknowledge their efforts and actively join our encyclopedia.

  I believe you are an excellent editor, but are still learning the ways of the admin tasks. Administrators spend less time in articles and more in other tasks, and would be a pity to "lose" such a good editor. However, if it is your decision, I suggest to spend more time in deletion discussions, to join the recent changes patrol, and learn to use the different template warnings. These had been reviewed by multiple users, and are considered to have the exact wording for different situations, welcoming until it is not possible to assume good faith, and increasing their tone until it is obvious they will not stop. Gather experience in both areas, and you should have no problems with a future RFA. You have already proven yourself as a very good editor, now you only need to demonstrate your capabilities to handle vandals and judge articles that require administrator help. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 19:04, 4 November 2006 (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 particularly pleased with the articles I have written pertaining to socio-economic issues in the United States, such as Household income in the United States, American middle class, Educational attainment in the United States and Crime in the United States. I believe that these articles will provide Wikipedia readers with the unbiased, objective and accurate information they are seeking. I made sure that every piece of information is referenced in manner that assures our readers that Wikipedia is a source they can trust. My goal for the use of in-line citations is to enable the readers of my articles to re-trace much of my research. I am also pleased with the templates I have created to ease navigation among the many articles pertaining to American society.

2. 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 been involved in my fair share of conflicts. Perhaps, this is due to my interest and involvement in issues that may be seen as controversial. I also try to keep an open mind and try to learn from the criticism of others. I have, however, encountered some individuals whom I had to report to the administrators. I believe that Wikipedia ought to be a civil place where editors comment on issues not each other-I have made a successful effort to always remain civil and keep the focus of discussions on the issues. I should perhaps also mention, that I do make a habit of warning (and tracing the contributions of) vandals and reporting them to the admins.