Wikipedia:Editor review/Dylan620 (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dylan620[edit]

Dylan620 (talk · contribs) – I've been here since September 2007, editing actively since August 2008. Admittedly, I do not have much article work, but I'm currently (albeit slowly) working on a hurricane season timeline at User:Dylan620/Sandbox/Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season. I think I do good work with adoption, CSD (namely broken redirects), and ACC, so I was hoping for a review in those areas most of all. For quick links, here's my account creation log and my deleted contribs (admins only). Cheers!

Note that while I would love to be an administrator someday, I don't plan on running until toward the end of the year. Dylan 620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 14:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Hurricanehink

Work more on articles, and try getting an FA (not FL, but FA) before you go for RFA. Though not an official rule, many people like seeing prospective admins who have gone all the way with building and improving content of an article. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Hink. I'm not sure what I could do for FA, but you can count on FL soon enough. --Dylan 620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 15:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of retired Atlantic hurricane articles that need more work, have plenty of info, and would make a great impression if you got them featured. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PeterSymonds

I have seen you around a lot, and I must reiterate what others have said: Your article work is severely lacking. I have a feeling you want to be an administrator at some point in the future (and if I am wrong, please accept my apologies), but you simply would not pass without more work in this area. Your CSD and ACC work has been good, and I applaud you for working in the severely backlogged area of new page patrol (*spam*, if you're bored, we need more over there!!*spam*).
You have developed well since first joining Wikipedia, but I have noticed issues of maturity. This comment was not very appropriate, and while you meant well, goading editors who aren't too popular with the RfA crowd does not make a happy community. It would be helpful if you could refrain from making such comments in the future. :)
This was quite out of line. Ottava Rima is an editor in good standing, so posting redlinks to RfC and RfAr is not appropriate. I know you regretted the edit summary, but the comment–while not appropriate–could hardly be considered "harassment". They argued over IRC; it sounded nasty, but harassment doesn't look like the word I'd use to describe it.
This comment was highly unnecessary and could be viewed as hurtful. The issues were far more sensitive than an admin going rogue, as the editor pointed out, so any further comments like that could have made things worse. I'm pleased you reconsidered and removed it later.
While enthusiastic comments are generally fine, this might have been a bit over the top. RfA is not a vote; it's the comment that follows the "support" or "oppose" that counts. It might be best to consider offering a more...detailed? rationale in future. ;)
You are generally a good editor, but from your talk page, I think a number of people are getting a little irritated about some of your comments for a variety of reasons. You might want to talk to them individually if you're unsure what they are specifically. Mainspace count needs to improve...I know you're doing your best, but it really isn't that difficult. You'll get the hang of it. Perhaps start out by doing a few WP:DYKs? I'll be happy to help you.

Good luck. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shappy

If you want to become an admin, you'll need to have quite a bit of article work. Focusing less on the project space will help in this regard. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 16:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Just a short comment, I do not have time for a full review unfortunately: You strike me as inconstant and hasty at times. One example is that you have changed your signature half a dozen times in the last weeks. While it's not forbidden to do so, it might send a signal that you cannot let something this unimportant rest. Also, contributions like this, while well-intentioned, are hurtful to yourself and those you named. For example it was used against Cyclonenim in his RFA as a reason to oppose him, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cyclonenim 3#More on my opposes. So, if you ever want to become an admin, you need to review your way of behaving and editing. You need to become more patient, less jumpy and enthusiastic and less aggressive (as PeterSymonds points out). Regards So Why 11:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both the edit summary and the entire content of this oppose will most likely snowball any RfA you have anytime now, to the next six months, and possibly longer...and bear in mind I'm not even including the other concerns PeterSymonds mentions above. In addition, I noticed this edit summary on a support vote: I think it'll be a good idea to cease using profanity in any edit summary, even RfA support votes. Unfortunately, unless RfA standards really change, based on my experience of the process I would be very surprised if you passed RfA this year; I think it'll be better to focus on both improving articles and improving yourself than running for adminship. This all being said, I don't think you're a bad editor, and your intentions are good. If you have any further questions, you know where my talk page is. Best wishes. Acalamari 15:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your intentions are all very well intended, however it really seems that one of your main intentions is to run into an RfA (maybe an RfB, even). I'd like to frankly note that you are not ready. You need to increase your mainspace count without the use of automated tools, and gain much more experience in administrative areas. Echoing the above, mainly. I'm also concerned by your inconsistent signature as of late. It's very confusing, and seems extremely unproductive. Please try to pick a signature and stick with it. One last thing, is your "Today's Wikipedian" page, while it's a nice gift, we already have many of those, and I'm not sure I see the need of another one going around. If you came up with a different concept, it may be a bit interesting, but having so many of these started, it's going to eventually mean nothing to get one (from any of you guys). iMatthew : Chat 01:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I often find your intentions to be good, but not your actions. I think that sometimes you make decisions without thinking about the consequences — there's no harm in letting an edit lie for a little bit whilst you think about whether it is an appropriate comment to make, and how it will be recieved, whether it be on a page, or in an edit summary. I do, however, think that you have good intentions, and it is my belief that that is the most important part of contributing. Keep up the good work, — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you state that you might run for adminship later in the year. Some food for thought — people will be looking for evidence not only that you have stopped doing the things which have caused problems previously, but also they will be looking for behavioural evidence that such things are unlikely to occur again. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan, I'm afraid I must agree with the above comments. In short, I think it's best if you would heed User:Essjay's advice. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
View this user's edit count using X!'s counter

Dabomb87 Hi, I've seen you around, so I decided to make blunt comments. Please do not take offense.

First, the good: I see you have been building an article in your sandbox. It is good to see that you are striving to improve your editing balance (more on that further down). Also, your vandal fighting, CSDing and ACC participation have definitely helped out the encyclopedia.
I would advise you not to even think about adminship at the moment. Your ACC and CSD contributions are nice, but in the end, the mission is building an encyclopedia. An important aspect of Wikipedia (and indeed, any wiki) is collaboration. There is really no other good way to achieve this besides working on articles. If you do not have experience in this area, then the community will not have any reason to believe that you will make a good admin, which is all about communication. *Reading the above comments, I don't see the maturity needed from an admin. Your comments here didn't strike me as particularly mature. Admins should always act like adults, regardless of age, which, incidentally, would be a cause for hesitation for many at RfA, especially in the light of some of your actions (sorry to be blunt, but it had to be said).
WRT article building, don't think that you have to write FAs from the get-go. Start slow: create new articles, expand stubs, add citations to unreferenced articles, etc. There are other ways in which you can help in this area: our content review processes (including WP:FAC, WP:FLC, WP:GAN, and WP:PR) are always in need of reviewers. Basic cleanup is a great help too—wikifying, fixing layout, copy-editing, adding categories, the possibilities are endless. I see that you're a part of WP Tropical cyclones; look around for opportunities to collaborate on articles.
The most serious issue I see is your approach to Wikipedia. Right now, it seems for you to be some sort of social-networking-type site. This ANI thread concerns me. I think you're too focused on the social aspects (such as WikiCookies and the "Your Day" thing). Looking through your contribs, I see more guestbook signing and userpage edits than Wikipedia and article namespaces. User:Dylan620/Adoption/JohnTheSupercargo/lesson2 is telling (the first lesson was good, though). I realize the adoptee wanted a lesson on HTML (I assume this includes wikimarkup), but you spend too much time on the nonessentials, such as font colors and signatures. I would expect more emphasis on markup used in Wikipedia articles, such as bold, italics, cite templates for adding references, section headers, and basic WP article organization. Your own constant signature changes as described above are also an issue.

Please don't be offended by these comments, they are only my thoughts and are presented in good faith. You have done great work in some areas. I think that if you take your eyes off adminship at the present and shift your focus toward article and maintainence-type areas, you'll be a very productive editor. Good luck! Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
My primary contributions to Wikipedia are CSD work ATM, as well as account creation ([1]). I'm very proud of my progress in these areas, and I have to admit that these are my proudest contribs to Wikipedia, alongside this.
Have you been in any conflicts 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?
Yes, and many at that. As recently as late last month, I've been warned to kick it up with my article contribs, only to get distracted by other things. Hopefully, my CSD and ACC work will compensate for this, even though I am slowly building an article.

Questions from Seddon

How on earth do you think that youll become a bureaucrat before an admin?
I don't. That RfB was just an April Fool's Day joke. --Dylan 620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 00:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that you can become a steward on one particular project?
I'll wait a very long time before attempting to become a steward, but thanks for asking. To add more, only Meta has the "steward" user right, so it's techincally impossible for me to become a steward here. --Dylan 620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 00:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you absolutely sure? Seddσn ^talk 02:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.