Wikipedia:Editor review/Multixfer

Multixfer

Multixfer (talk · contribs · count) Hello, I am Multixfer and I'm requesting this editor review as a means of assessing my potential for adminship. Even if I turned out to be totally unsuited to adminship I'd also like to hear what others objectively think of my work. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My primary contributions to Wikipedia have varied significantly over time. Some time ago I worked primarily in new page patrol (which I have mostly ceased) and from there I began helping newbie editors improve their articles so that they could become useful and encyclopedic (and kept). I've helped a few new folks out in this manner, which I have to say makes me feel pretty good and which I'm proud of. I submitted some of these two DYK as well, which I think can be a really positive first experience for a newbie. I think there are probably many such people who could benefit from some basic help in referencing and cleaning up their first article. Lately, I've found pleasure in doing some simple administrative-type tasks (like tagging sockpuppets) and have also written a couple articles and several stubs on topics that interest me. I'd like to do more of this in the future as well as help others improve their stubs.

3. 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've certainly had some disputes here and there, none of which I'm especially proud of, but I like to think I have both the humility to admit when I'm wrong and the strength to argue a position when I believe I am both right and in accordance with policy. I think disputes in such a large forum as Wikipedia are unavoidable, but I also think that if everyone remembers to adhere to the guidelines and policies, that any dispute can be resolved. In the future I hope to avoid drama as much as possible, but in those cases in which it is unavoidable, core policies and guidelines like WP:V, WP:N, WP:BLP and WP:RS are indispensable and always pertinent.

Optional Questions from Doc Quintana

1. Why did you come to Wikipedia, and what do you get out of it? Doc Quintana (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   Well, originally I came to kill time during slow days at work. I have a different job now, so only edit from home now, which is probably why my participation has slowed somewhat. I guess I'd just like to help out however I can. I used to see Wikipedia as full of lots of junk and hoaxes and vandalism that needed to be deleted... I still think we have problems with that but I learned fairly quickly that one person (or 10 or 50 people) can't clean it all up. Lately, I've only really had time to check my watchlist for vandalism or other unhelpful edits. My greatest pleasure comes from helping new accounts improve their stubs so that they can be kept. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

• Hi Multixfer, 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: Although your rate of using edit summaries has improved (78% of major edits over the last 150 edits), on the whole it is not as high as many editors would like to see. 65% of all major edits to main space is a bit low. Edit summaries are helpful to other editors who have a page on their watchlist - they know what has been done to the article, and it can help them decide whether they need to look more closely at specific edits.
• Constructive comments on talk pages: Most of the comments which I can see appear to be constructive, with the visible aim of trying to improve articles and the encyclopedia as a whole.
• Attitude towards others: I can't see any problems with this - you appear to show respect to others, and to be willing to work with others in a collaborative manner. (Incidently, I notice that you have helped to set up archiving on some article talk pages - I'm surprised that you don't do so on your own talk page! There is no requirement to, of course, but I quite often find myself wanting to look through my archive for a specific discussion).

• Edits

• Automated Edits: About a fifth of all your edits are automated (using Twinkle). I did not see any obvious problems here, your use of Twinkle appears to be accurate.
• Article vs non-article: About 1/3 article edits, 1/3 User Talk Page edits, about 1/8 Wikipedia namespace edits. Some editors would want to see more article work, but I don't think this proportion is too far out of line.

• RfA

• CSD: You don't appear to have any in the last 3 months, but I see several articles which were deleted following your tagging in November, with very few declined.
• PROD: Again, I see several successful PROD tags from October/November, with only a couple contested.
• xfD: You have contributed to several xfD, using policy-based arguments from what I can see.
• ANI/AN: The contributions I saw seemed to be constructive.
• Contributions to RfAs: Unless I am missing anything, you have only contributed to one RfA (Connormah's recent one). I am glad to see that it wasn't just a "per xyz" support, but that you gave a more considered reason for your support!

• Other

• I see that you have received 3 DYKs in the last 7 months - this is always a good sign of a good contributor!
• Your tagging of sockpuppets appears to be useful - but I'll admit that I didn't look in detail at these, just noted that it had occurred.

• Summary

• Using my RfA standards as a guide, this quick look at your history (I only spent about 50 mins) would seem to indicate that I personally would be inclined towards support - but I should point out that were you to appear at RfA, I would look at your history a lot closer! I didn't see anything which would lead me to believe that you would be totally unsuited for adminship. I see an editor who seems to be performing well, with what appears to be a clear intention of improving Wikipedia.

I hope this is helpful, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)