Wikipedia:Editor review/Click23

Click23

Click23 (talk · contribs · count) One day I might want to become an admin, so I just want to see how I have done up to this point. I know that I lack in adding substantive information to articles, I spend most of my time dealing with vandals and recent changes patrols, I need to get back into new page patrols and commenting on AFDs. Click23 (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Hi Click23, sorry for the delay in getting a review for you - we're slowly catching up with the backlog! On to my review...

User conduct

Edit summaries: Very informative. There are few occasions where you neglect to use them (SoxRed's edit summary shows 96% summaries on major edits, 100% on minor!)
Constructive comments on talk pages: Your comments help towards making better articles. I also note that you have been doing some article assessments too, well done!
Attitude towards others: What interaction I can see has been good!

Edits

Just over half of you edits are on articles, which is good - but I notice that probably about half of these are automated edits using Twinkle and Huggle (38.8% total automated across all name spaces). Almost 40% of your edits are to user talk pages: again, a good proportion.

RfA

Here are some observations, if you were to consider starting an RfA:

Deletions: Looking through your contributions, I see that you nominated 14 articles for Speedy Deletion, 7 articles Proposed for Deletion, and a few AfDs. I would take part in more AfD (and MfD) discussions - if you go for adminship, a lot of editors will see evidence that you can both present a reason for deletion/keeping based on policies and guidelines, and that you can express yourself. xfDs are the perfect venue for this - it gives an indication of how much you will consider the issue before making a decision to delete/keep.

Note 1: I couldn't see your involvement in the ThreePeace AfD listed below - I couldn't find your user name in the history or on the page.
Note 2: On the Dellwood Country Club AfD, although obviosuly not everyone agreed with you, I cannot see anything that would have caused you stress - and it wasn't a conflict as such, just a discussion.

AN/ANI: I only found one comment on these boards - about an article which was later AfD'd by you. Again, although you are not an admin, you are free to join in discussions here. They can be contentious, but they will show your powers of communication, your patience (!) and you knowledge of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.
RfA !voting: I notice that you have never cast a !vote (or commented) on anyone's RfA. I think it is a good idea to do so, for two reasons: firstly, you get another chance to show your understanding of the expectations on Wikipedia for admins and to express your opinion; secondly, your name will be seen - and if you go for your own RfA, if editors haven't seen you around much in the "admin" areas, they will be unsure of you.

Summary

You appear to be a good editor - keep up the good work!
In my personal opinion, you are not ready to consider thinking about an RfA. Read my comments above to give some ideas on what I would expect to see before you think about it!

Feel free to come back to Editor Review in a few months time for another review. In the meantime, continue with what you are doing! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an "argument" to avoid per WP:PERNOM, particularly when the person being cited has been refuted and the consensus is clearly to keep. The best way to approach AfDs is to find sources and add them to the article and consider ALL other options other than deletion except in extreme cases (hoaxes, libel, copy vios, etc.). On a more positive note, congratulations on never being blocked! Also, Happy Thanksgiving! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:PERNOM is only an essay, it does make since to follow, and it is just a easy to say "fails WP:GNG" as it is to say "per nom". Thanks for the reccomendation. Click23 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
This would have to be dealing with vandalized pages
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 two that I can think of are ThreePeace and Dellwood Country Club AFDs