This is my sandbox that I use when creating editor reviews. Please note that if you happen upon it whilst I am doing your editor review that you may find some of my shorthand notes terse and unhelpful compared to what I hope to eventually place on your review page. Also please note that some of the text on this page is here permanently, as I have needed to make some statements more than once and decided to just leave them here for convenience.
Things to review edit
- Edit Summaries. Consistent? Descriptive?
- Major/minor edits. tagged?
- Civility
- Look at own talk page: interactions with others
- Check article talkspace
- Check contributions to XfDs
- Check responses to vandalism
- reports?
- notes?
- Article contributions
- Up on policies?
Shorthand comments edit
I see that you very seldom use edit summaries. These can useful to other editors in quickly determining what you've contributed to an article—say if they're trying to track down a particular edit in the history or if they're watching "recent changes" for signs of vandalism. We're encouraged to use them always, whether editing articles or talk space. You may want to go under "my preferences" to the "editing" tab and ask Wikipedia to prompt you if you forget. This was a very useful tool in helping me remember, and once in a while it still catches me. :)
Since you have previously been reviewed, I have only checked your contributions since (date).
I notice that you have cleaned up vandalism quite properly (link), but I see that you did not follow-up with a warning to the vandal. I'd encourage you to get into the habit of doing this, as recommended at the vandalism policy. This can be beneficial in several ways. Some vandals are discouraged from further vandalism by evidence that others are aware of their behavior. Those that aren't are more easily addressed when other editors see that they have received prior warnings. There is a whole list of templates to be used in userspace, including warnings for vandalism or other types of unproductive edits, here.
General comments edit
When I take on an editor review for somebody whose contributions I don't already know well, I enter with a bit of dread, since it can be very hard to be consistently tactful if most of what you encounter are problems. It takes very tricky wording, after all, to tell somebody, "You're doing great, aside from being rude and disruptive, labeling good faith constructive edits as vandalism and refusing to use edit summaries." :) When on the contrary I gradually discover that I'm dealing with somebody who is very good at what they're doing, I get very excited, like finding out that the mime who stopped me on the street corner is genuinely really funny. So...thanks for that. :) The downside for you is that my biggest suggestion for where you could improve would be edit frequency...and evidently that's not what you want to hear. Oh, well. I'll try to come up with something more.
On to specifics. I poked and prodded at your last 1000 edits. I didn't read everything, but I popped in randomly and I paid particular attention to your interactions with other editors, including contributions to AfD and talkpage interactions. I see good use of edit summary; have to go back quite a ways to find a missed one. I like the evidence of diligence here. I see good warnings for vandalism; you don't always warn when you encounter "stale" vandalism, it seems. Neither do I. Your AIV reports seem on.
I'm really deeply impressed with the nature and tone of your communication with other editors. I like the civility and level-headedness of your communications here (by here I mean that note and the one immediately preceding it.) I have a strong desire to applaud you for your civility and perspective in this (and the outcome speaks for itself.) Without looking at responses (since that's not the point), I found this articulate and very thoughtful.
I don't really quite know what to say about this one, so I'll just note that your initial note was improperly formatted. In order to keep numeration in line for subsequent opposes (had there been any), comments on numbered statements need to include the little # thingie before the colons. It turned out not to be an issue, since nobody else opposed, but I have had to repair such malformatted comments on RfA before. :) (The reason I don't quite know what to say about that one is because it's not exactly "the thing" to challenge an opposer on a technicality of terms, but, well.... It's not exactly a pattern of yours, and we're talking special circumstances here. I don't think it's "bitchy" behavior, as it was described, but generally it might be better to be more explicit about your response, as you were in your subsequent much longer note, addressing the deeper issue. In any event, it's obvious that you know it's not typical protocol already, or you wouldn't call for your own trout slapping. :))
Also, I can't see that you ever answered this question, though you actively edited as recently as the next day. Not sure if there's a good reason (and there may well be; I didn't spend that much time on this small point), but, if not, then I'll just note that it's good to follow up with people who leave you talk comments and if, for some reason you can't help, to let them know why.
Your AfD participation looks good. I wish you had time for more of it. :) Good and good--shows own thought, awareness of community standards. This one was a mess. Having closed AfDs, I have no doubt that your contribution there was helpful. I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of your point here (although I had a look at the deleted history, and it is interesting that SmackBot made a mistake in dating that template, which was placed on August 2nd). For the sake of general clarity, I think it might have benefited that AfD to have expanded a little more how you felt that point was relevant in determining the notability of the article. Also, I think you might reconsider the approach in this one. Re-nomination after a week is not standard and might be a misguided use of community energy, given the number of AfDs we process on any given day and the shortage of responsible contributors.