About Me
My name is Andrew. I started editing Wikipedia on the 8th April 2013, although I've expressed an interest in Wikipedia since the early 2000s.
I try to think carefully about my actions. I strive to stay fair and impartial in everything I do and I aim for outcomes that are beneficial for everybody involved.
My Wikipedia Activities
I frequently patrol the "Recent changes" (new contributor specific) page and use a varied array of templates to guide new users on why I have reversed an edit that they have done. If you find errors with how I am handling cases of user vandalism or disagree with my judgement on a particular edit then please contact me on my talk page.
I commonly help out at Third Opinion, a useful and informal dispute resolution method for dealing with content disputes.
One of my more recent activities is cleaning up articles that don't have enough wikilinks.
You may also find me on your talk page with some helpful information from time to time based on the situation.
My Anti-Vandalism Standard Procedure
- My recent changes settings: May have problems: on, likely have problems: on, very likely have problems: on, newcomers: on, Human (not bot): on, Latest revision: on, Page edits: on and :(Main): on
- Examine recent changes page for potentially problematic edits.
- Click the diff button next to an edit on that page when I believe I have found something suspicious.
- Examine the edit for clear problems that go against established policies. (I don't tend to intervene with borderline cases unless I'm 100% sure).
- Revert the problematic edit and leave a reason as to why I'm doing it in the edit summary.
- Use WP:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace to match the type of policy breach with the user warning I will use on their talk page.
- Use a section on the user's talk page for notifying them of the revert that I've done, using the appropriate user warning in the process. Sometimes I accelerate the warning depending upon severity (ie. not start with level 1 templates).
- Add the page I've reverted an edit on and the user's talk page to my watchlist for further monitoring.
- Wait 2-3 minutes after I've posted a warning to issue another one if the same user has continued to make problematic edits after the initial warning. This is to ensure that the user has had ample time to read it and take note.
- Report at WP:AIV (if it's clear vandalism) after a user warning level of 4 has been breached by further problematic edits.
Third Opinion Guidance
Make sure there are only two editors involved in your content dispute and the matter has been thoroughly discussed on the talk page of the article that your dispute covers before submitting a request at WP:3O.
Your request for a 'Third Opinion' may be declined for any of the following reasons (plus any reason that hinders the process):
- Your request has been on the active disagreements list for over 6 days.
- Your dispute has not been discussed thoroughly enough on the talk page.
- Your dispute has had substantial input from more than 2 editors (including yourself).
- Your dispute was not a content based dispute.
- Your dispute is being discussed in further detail elsewhere, specifically at higher level dispute resolution locations.
- Your dispute is not actually a dispute.
- Disputes started by sock-puppets.
More details on 'Third Opinion' can be located: here and an FAQ can be located: here.
Contact Me
Leave me a message on my talk page if you wish to contact me for any reason regarding Wikipedia.
Wikipedia Beliefs
 | This user values third opinions and occasionally provides one. |
 | This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know. |
About Me
My name is Andrew. I started editing Wikipedia on the 8th April 2013, although I've expressed an interest in Wikipedia since the early 2000s.
I try to think carefully about my actions. I strive to stay fair and impartial in everything I do and I aim for outcomes that are beneficial for everybody involved.
My Wikipedia Activities
I frequently patrol the "Recent changes" (new contributor specific) page and use a varied array of templates to guide new users on why I have reversed an edit that they have done. If you find errors with how I am handling cases of user vandalism or disagree with my judgement on a particular edit then please contact me on my talk page.
I commonly help out at Third Opinion, a useful and informal dispute resolution method for dealing with content disputes.
One of my more recent activities is cleaning up articles that don't have enough wikilinks.
You may also find me on your talk page with some helpful information from time to time based on the situation.
My Anti-Vandalism Standard Procedure
- My recent changes settings: May have problems: on, likely have problems: on, very likely have problems: on, newcomers: on, Human (not bot): on, Latest revision: on, Page edits: on and :(Main): on
- Examine recent changes page for potentially problematic edits.
- Click the diff button next to an edit on that page when I believe I have found something suspicious.
- Examine the edit for clear problems that go against established policies. (I don't tend to intervene with borderline cases unless I'm 100% sure).
- Revert the problematic edit and leave a reason as to why I'm doing it in the edit summary.
- Use WP:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace to match the type of policy breach with the user warning I will use on their talk page.
- Use a section on the user's talk page for notifying them of the revert that I've done, using the appropriate user warning in the process. Sometimes I accelerate the warning depending upon severity (ie. not start with level 1 templates).
- Add the page I've reverted an edit on and the user's talk page to my watchlist for further monitoring.
- Wait 2-3 minutes after I've posted a warning to issue another one if the same user has continued to make problematic edits after the initial warning. This is to ensure that the user has had ample time to read it and take note.
- Report at WP:AIV (if it's clear vandalism) after a user warning level of 4 has been breached by further problematic edits.
Third Opinion Guidance
Make sure there are only two editors involved in your content dispute and the matter has been thoroughly discussed on the talk page of the article that your dispute covers before submitting a request at WP:3O.
Your request for a 'Third Opinion' may be declined for any of the following reasons (plus any reason that hinders the process):
- Your request has been on the active disagreements list for over 6 days.
- Your dispute has not been discussed thoroughly enough on the talk page.
- Your dispute has had substantial input from more than 2 editors (including yourself).
- Your dispute was not a content based dispute.
- Your dispute is being discussed in further detail elsewhere, specifically at higher level dispute resolution locations.
- Your dispute is not actually a dispute.
- Disputes started by sock-puppets.
More details on 'Third Opinion' can be located: here and an FAQ can be located: here.
Contact Me
Leave me a message on my talk page if you wish to contact me for any reason regarding Wikipedia.
Wikipedia Beliefs
|
| This user values third opinions and occasionally provides one. |
|
| This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know. |