Wikipedia:Editor review/MC10 2

MC10 2

MC10 (talk · contribs · count) It's been a while since my last editor review, so I'd like some advice and some suggestions, and whether or not I should run for RFA in the next few months or so. I've been a bit busy, so I haven't been as active as I would like to, but I am still fairly active here. —mc10 (t/c) 06:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
I would definitely say that my primary contributions have been to vandalism reverting and CSD. I am not a great article improver, and I currently lack the time to dedicate myself to improving an article to GA/FA, so when I do make manual edits to articles, they are likely to be minor copy edits. Vandalism reverting and CSD, an integral part of Wikipedia, has always been my strongest point.
Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
I have not encountered many editing disputes after my most recent RFA, though if I were to be involved in one, I would first attempt to keep the discussion from escalating into a debate, and then attempt to resolve the conflict, whether by discussion or (a form of) compromise. Editing disputes are what cause many good proficient article writers to leave, and that is harmful to the encyclopedia's future, as good article writers leave; therefore, it is usually preferable to avoid as many disputes or debates as possible, though of course, they are eventually unavoidable.

Reviews

Since you mention RfA, I'll try to review from that perspective.

First things first (I'll try to avoid editcountitis): The piechart here looks very like a vandalfighter's piechart, with user talk edits almost as frequent as article edits. No bad thing, of course, and I have to respect anybody who does so much hard work standing on the walls of the citadel fighting off the barbarian invasion. However, there don't seem to be many article talk edits. I had a look through your contribs and they were mostly adding templates &c to talkpages or undoing vandalism, which makes it difficult for me to judge how you've dealt with content disagreements, because so much of that tends to happen on article talkpages. (Also, other types of disputes are often the offspring of content disputes). What content disputes have you been involved in, if any, even as a passerby? Some examples would be really helpful to this humble reviewer. (I promise not to hold it against you at any future RfA).
More broadly, could you give examples of any other disputes you've been involved in? Even an AfD contested by a couple of socks, or a noisy discussion over some question of style, could give some insight into how you cope with dispute (which is a litmus test of a wikipedian, I think).
Edit summaries seem reasonable enough. Not perfect, but it's within the tolerance bars. Edit summaries should be a courtesy to other editors, rather than a ritual; looking at a list of your contributions it's usually clear to me what you were doing, but not always.
Plenty of clear userpage content. Maybe a little cluttered or too colourful, but I'm hardly an arbiter of taste.
You emphasise vandalfighting &c, but could you give any examples of content that you're proud of building, either solo or collaboratively? My perspective is that there are a hundred different chores to be done on wikipedia, so there's no reason to criticise somebody for shying away from content if they do something else useful instead; but a lot of folk at RfA would be reassured if you could demonstrate a broad understanding of content policies, and the best way to do that is with a finished example. The best ones I've found are Aurifeuillian factorization and maybe Coarse function; nice text (in an area where it's difficult to walk the line between "accurate" and "readable-to-a-layperson"), good inline cites. However, without a bigger example, a lot of folk might not be convinced that you really know your way around content-building (which is the ultimate goal of wikipedia, even if the mop itself is mostly used for other work). User:MC10/DYK mostly seems to be a list of other people's content which you've nominated. Like it or not, some RfA !voters are going to go to [1], think "Only four articles? Hmm.", then they click on Misty Stone, ...
Responses like this are really good: instead of escalating a problem with an angry new user you tried to defuse it and pointed out important policies. It's easy to succumb to the temptation of a sharp or sarcastic reply. Replies like this hint at slightly frayed patience, though. If you're going to hang around here for long, especially with a mop, sooner or later somebody will try to exhaust your patience...
Plenty of barnstars; obviously other people have been happy with some of the work that you've done.
A random sample of 50 countervandalism edits didn't turn up anything unusual or bad.
Presumably you've made quite a few edits to AIV, RFPP, CSD &c. Would you like me to review those in detail? (Alas, I can't see deleted contribs, but I do see lots of redlinks so obviously somebody agrees with your CSD tagging).

Hope that's a helpful start; all responses welcome (the best feedback is interactive feedback). If you disagree, bear in mind that I'm just a random wikipedian and this review is worth exactly what you paid for it. bobrayner (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I highly appreciate you taking your time to dig through my edits. Granted, this was about a year ago, but it's still a valid point.

The reason why Misty Stone shows up as an article created is because I created a redirect, but it was turned into an article, so I actually did not write that article. I would probably say that First Crusade and Radio23 were my best content contributions, though none of them were entirely substantial (as in stub -> GA/FA).

You mention that "Edit summaries seem reasonable enough. Not perfect, but it's within the tolerance bars. Edit summaries should be a courtesy to other editors, rather than a ritual; looking at a list of your contributions it's usually clear to me what you were doing, but not always." Can you elaborate on that? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

You can see most of my CSD taggings here, if you wish to spend your time doing so.

I don't quite remember any recent dispute, but I'll probably go dig around in my archives and look for one.

Cheers, —mc10 (t/c) 22:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to edit some more articles. You get a better appreciation of what the product that is importajnt for the readers is, more appreciation of how much work it is, more appreciation of where we are lacking. It may not be as socially fun as wacking or as "easy" as gnoming. But it is needed to really appreciate the encyclopedia. If vandals went away completely (or all responses were automated) would your reasons for being here go away? Vandal-wacker, who has been to busy to spend time at Wiki does not thrill me to be a moderator of this encyclopedia creation endeavor.TCO (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]