Wikipedia:Editor review/KyraVixen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] KyraVixen

KyraVixen (talk · contribs) I am curious to see how others think I am doing, and what I could improve upon or do differently, as I am eventually planning on submitting an RfA. Not for the power, or status... that is not what the title of administrator means. Rather I'd like to improve the encyclopedia in whatever way I could, wielding the mop and bucket with restraint and wisdom, as along with them come powerful tools that are not to be taken lightly. Kyra_~(talk) 08:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews Review by delldot:

• I don't personally think it's important to have a certain number of edits in a certain namespace, I think that's an extremely flawed (not to mention gameable!) way of measuring an editor's worth. So I commend you for not bowing to that pressure and making useless pile-on edits when you don't see it as necessay.
• In the conflict that you bring up, I would have been more specific in explaining to the user exactly what was wrong with their edit; you basically just told them it was against WP:NOT. I think you also should have taken a more friendly approach at the beginning, since you came off kind of abrupt, though I'm sure you didn't mean to. I would have apologized for removing the material and explained why I did. After they responded, you skipped directly to a t3, which I think was premature. I'm not sure that adding stuff that's against WP:NOT counts as vandalism (though of course in some cases it would). I looked at some of their edits and did not think they were vandalism, though they were certainly disruptive. Under WP:VAN, edits must be made with the intent to damage the encyclopedia to be classified as vandalism. I would caution you to be very sure something is vandalism before labeling it as such. Not to say that the unpleasantness that went down was your fault, but I think a friendlier approach might have deterred some of their persecution complex they seemed to have going on. On the other hand, you did a great job in your second post to their page going into detail about what resources they could use to get editing help and offered your own help. You left on a polite note. I see from that page history that the editor was indeed being disruptive and ultimately blocking them may have been the only solution.
• On the whole, though, I think you handle discussions with new users and those with whom you disagree very well. e.g. here, you address the user's concerns, explain your reasoning citing policy, assure them that you meant nothing personal, and wish them a good day.
• Similarly, I was very impressed by these two responses to users, they were very friendly and you took plenty of time to explain things at length. I've reviewed a fair number of people and you stand out as one who is willing to take time and go into depth to explain stuff to new users. This is the kind of friendly, accessable attitude that makes someone a really successful wikipedian. So great job!
• I also thought you handled the bizarre confrontation between Sumaloo and Buraizu on your talk page very well, keeping calm and insisting on sources.
• Good, consistent use of informative edit summaries.
• You review articles for GA status and you definitely know your stuff.
• You rv a lot of v, almost always leaving warnings. The warnings I looked at I thought were appropriate: not too high or low a level (I don't like it when people skip to igher level warningst too fast, so good job). What's a zero tolerance policy toward vandalism? My approach to vandalism is to tolerate it for approximately 4 instances of vandalism, then to no longer tolerate it for a short period of time, after which I risk beginning to tolerate it again ;) It's good that you assume good faith on the part of new users.

Overall, excellent job! I'd be most interested to hear your response to my concerns about the IP dispute with WP:NOT, either here or on my talk page. delldot talk 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool, and see their edit summary usage using Mathbot's tool.

Questions

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

   Honestly, I an not proud of any single contribution, as each edit by every editor contributes to the whole project; on the same token however, I am proud of all of my contributions for that reason. I am an avid vandal fighter, and have a zero-tolerance policy for vandalism and linkspam, yet I still find it extremely easy to assume good faith for those individuals who have not had a history of vandalistic edits, as well as in general. Usually I just attribute it to the person not knowing that the type of behavior they portray is not looked highly upon here, or perhaps they just had a bad day and are trying to let off some steam. I do consistently inform the administrators at AIV if they go past their final warning, regardless if I gave it or another editor does.

   I am aware that I do not have an obscenely high number of Wikipedia-namespace edits, and by the same token, a high number of XfD edits; I just don't think it is needed to pile onto the discussions, when adding would merely be restating what other editors have said. When I do voice my opinion, I weigh the article on its own merits first, and then take into consideration the nominator's concern; after that, then I voice my suggesion based on policies or guidelines; deletion discussions are not about I like it or anything of that sort.

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?

   The only conflict over editing that I can recall, was over one editor repeatedly inserting material into Alpental that did not belong under what Wikipedia is not. I tried to explain to the user as best as I could that they were disregarding that policy, however that did not seem to work.

   Regardless, I always try to maintain my cool while editing, and will walk away from the computer if I ever feel myself growing tense, subsequently returning later, cool and collected. Ideally, I try to avoid conflicts in the first place, but were I to get into one, I would make sure I was calm before I started typing any sort of reply, as editing and being annoyed or angry do not form the optimal editing environment.