Wikipedia:Editor review/Nomader (3)

Nomader (talk · contribs · count) I've been thinking (still on the fence) about dipping my toes into the rapids of WP:RfA and I was hoping to get direct feedback from another editor review. I'd appreciate it if you could write a few lines and let me know how to improve. Be honest, don't hold back, and try to nitpick like all those pesky RfA !voters do, and I'll be forever in your debt (even if I end up never running, it's always good to hear from the outside). Nomader (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   Content is where I usually try to contribute. I've created a number of DYKs that I'm particularly proud of and I'm getting close to 100 articles created. I've also created a number of featured lists and good articles, although I sometimes feel like putting some of my older GAs up for WP:GAR. I contribute regularly at WT:VG, and infrequently at WP:XfD, WP:RfA, and WT:DYK.

3. 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 think that this is the closest I've ever been to a full blown dispute; it was for an article that I nominated for deletion believing that it failed WP:ENT, but after a rather long debate with User:MichaelQSchmidt, I changed my mind. That debate was really a growing point for me on Wikipedia if I ever had one as it forced me to understand the nature of disputes and how they can so easily spiral out of control if you're not careful. A great lesson learned.

Reviews

• Review by Worm That Turned

Hi Nomader! Glad to meet you. I see you've been around for ages, but edit fairly sporadically. There's nothing wrong with that at all, as most of your work is on articles, and we need good article editors - however they may choose to do it. I'm really impressed to see quite so many featured lists and good articles coming from an editor and I hope you carry on doing so for the forseeable future. What's more, I see you've got a few triple crowns under your belt - something I've never managed and would love to at some point!
Anyway, you asked me to review you with respect to running for adminship, so that's what I'll do. Running by magic formula, you've at least got a good track record of content creation, which is a great start. What I don't see at the moment is work in any administrative areas, giving an idea that you have some sort of need for the tools. That's what I'd suggest you focus on, choose an area find interesting and help out there, offering useful comments or making things easier for administrators. Try not to worry about "non-admin closures", I generally don't see the point - compared to useful comments on more contentious cases. Perhaps even start helping out with the administration of DYK, you're one of our more prolific editors who is still active. Another thing to think about is helping new editors get on their feet, to show your ability to work well with others. Finally, some editors like to see a bit more consistancy in their administrators, regular edits each month for a good 6 months - 1 year, so you may have a bit of a way to go yet.
On the other hand, I should ask why on earth you want to be an administrator. You're an excellent editor, with a lot of good work behind you. There's little or no glamour in being an administrator, there's no discernable prestige. All it really counts for is a few extra buttons which allow you to do a few extra jobs. If you're not actually working in the areas where you can do those jobs, then why bother? I would much rather see you carry on doing the excellent work you're doing at the moment, you're worth 10 admins at the moment! Worm^TT(talk) 11:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WTT, thanks very much for the thorough review, I really appreciate you finding the time in your packed schedule to leave a blurb here. It's a good question that I've even asked myself: I don't seem to have any outward need for the tools, as I usually just create content and don't do as much administrator day-to-day stuff. I guess just call it a slowly growing curiosity. The more that I edit and lurk, the more I want to be involved in that other side of Wikipedia that I never used to be in. I think that it can take as much effort to be levelheaded in the middle of a dispute or an XfD !vote as it does to write a quality article and it's the sort of challenge that I'm interested in picking up on. I've obviously done alright with the content side of Wikipedia, but I just feel that the day to day disputes and XfD discussions can be just as fascinating. It'll take awhile to get my feet wet (I'm a pretty slow mover on this encyclopedia as far as movers go) but in the end... maybe those few extra buttons would be worth it if I can help this project out in different areas than what I'm used to now. Again, thanks for the review, I'm much obliged. Nomader (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]