Wikipedia:Editor review/MWOAP 2

MWOAP

MWOAP (talk · contribs · count) I am submitting this editor review because I am looking at possibility of a Admin Coaching Request. My last RfA had failed, and I want to make sure that I am good going for the next. I also don't really know what to consider the start of my active edits. Please note, I don't view Adminship as a trophy, I just want to help the community the best I can. If you want to go a little more indepth with me, my talk page is always open. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
I love all the work I have done below. I have been working with two editors for the past while. One Article I just moved to the mainspace as it was ready for publishing. I like particularly my Idea for the AWB account.

Work list

Always on Articles for Creation
Inputs on every Request for Adminship that stays up long enough !vote.
Adds and Removes (ones that aren't good reports) users @ Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism
Works in groups (of posts) on Articles for Deletion
Works with Account Creation Team
IRC Channels: #wikipedia-en-help, #wikipedia-en-afc, #wikipedia-en-accounts, ##MWOAP (Voiced on AfC & help, OP on ##MWOAP)
Clearing out backlogs in WP:Backlog (not 100% clearing, help clearing every once in a while)
Watch Star Trek Articles
Maintain the monthly selected Articles, Quotes, Pictures, and recommended articles for Portal:Star Trek
Use WP:AWB effectively to help cleanup wikipedia. (Using User:MWOAP(AWB))
Use WP:Huggle to remove vandalism.

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 did have a collapse at my last RfA. I tried to be good about it still. I took a few days break there to cool off. Otherwise I have had nothing. For any future RfA, I know what to expect, and how not to be upset with it.

Reviews

I am quite new to Wikipedia and its concept. MWOAP has been a patient guide, helpful, tolerant of my ignorance and willing to assist amid the hectic schedule. If not for this guidance and support I would have felt really lost in the wikipedia world. A good team player is always keen to lend a helping hand and MWOAP exemplifies this. Thanks so much for all the good work, MWOAP.

God's Flute (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MWOAP, here is my review - please note that in looking at your contributions, I have only gone back 2-3 months...

User conduct

Edit summaries: 100% use - very good. This helps people with the page on their watchlist to see what's happening, without having to always check the diff.
Constructive comments on article talk pages: Most of your edits to talk pages are either adding WPAFC banners or adding to GA notes. As such, they are constructive, but not much to comment on!
Attitude towards others: It's hard to tell! Most of the messages which you leave on user talk pages are templated (AFC ones or anti-vandalism ones). Reading through your talk page archives, I sometimes get the impression that you are being a bit short with other editors who disagree with you - but I didn't see any examples of rudeness as such.

Edits

Automated Edits: About 41% of you edits are automated (using a combination of Twinkle, Huggle, AWB and Friendly). This is not a problem in and of itself, but some editors at RfA will say that this is too high (I'm not one of these, as you can see at my RfA Standards). I was interested to note that on your RfA Voting, you would be inclined to oppose anyone with less than 10% automated edits - this seems to me to be a strange expectation, as many very successful vandalism fighters have never used the automated tools!
Article vs non-article: approx. 38% article edits, 29% user talk edits and 9% Wikipedia: edits. However, when making allowance for the fact that you use automated tools, realistically this means about 20% article edits and 15% user talk edits are "by you". Again, some commentators at RfA would say that this is too low (again, I'm not one of them)

RfA

CSD: Some involvement, a quick look appears to show that about 50% of your Speedy Delete-tagged articles are deleted.
PROD: I didn't see any PRODs, unless I missed them.
xfD: You have participated in a few of these (and started some). You often use policies and guidelines to explain your opinion.
ANI/AN: Some contributions here, but nothing major from what I can see, and some of them would have been better at AN/EW or other venues.
Contributions to RfAs: You have participated in a few (17 by my count), interestingly enough, 5 Supports, 5 Opposes and 5 Neutrals - the remaining 2, you asked questions but did not !vote. You generally give a thought-out reason for your !vote, more recently based on your criteria mentioned above.
Previous RfAs: Your last RfA was in January. It was closed as NOTNOW.

Summary

I see that you have opened two mediation cases (1, 2), which is good (unless there is no resolution of the problem in the end!), but as they are both open, I will not comment on them.
Using your criteria for RfA voting, I think that you would be somewhere between a neutral and a support. Going by my criteria, I think you would be a bit neared to a support, however, I do not feel that you are quite ready to go for adminship yet.
This has only been a quick look at your history, etc - if you were to go for another RfA, I would look in more detail - and also look at your answers to questions raised at the RfA, as I felt that this was what led me to oppose on your last one, as I did not seen the evidence I was looking for that you understood the policy in sufficient detail.

I hope that you find this review helpful, and feel free to contact me about any of it! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]