Wikipedia:Editor review/Gazimoff

Gazimoff[edit]

Gazimoff (talk · contribs) I've been editing for about four months now. I would like some feedback on my performance so far, as well as guidance on areas to work in that may interest me. Many thanks for any input you can offer. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 14:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

Questions[edit]

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
When I first started out on Wikipedia, I became involved with article review and cleanup for Wikiproject Videogames. Although I worked on a handful of articles there, I'm particularly proud of managing to develop 24: The Game from a start-class article to being an A rated Good article. This was due in no small part to the help and efforts of others in the project in reviewing articles and providing constructive feedback. Since then, I've gone on to perform reviews on Good Articles, participate in AfD debates where I feel I can offer a third opinion or add to the discussion, or participate in new areas I'm unfamilar with. I recently started the RfA Review process, which has started to gather interest and momentum and I'm pleased with the way things are progressing. I've got a number of unfinished pieces that I still want to complete, mainly about sandbox or stub articles that I'd like to expand and/or move into the mainspace, but which I don't feel are ready to be unleashed yet.
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?
I've been in a handful of conflicts in my time here so far -I've only been editing for four months. The first main one was on Talk:Criticism of World of Warcraft. I'd spent some time trying to clean up the article, add relevant sourcing and get the content reviewed by other editors. Unfortunately, my work was seen in a less than favourable light by an editor who was determined to conceal his identity. While I tried my best to assume good faith, the whole episode has left a foul taste in my mouth and my work on the Warcraft Taskforce has pretty much dwindled as a result. The other one happened quite recently, and was on WayForward Technologies. The article had been marked for notability concerns, so I did some checking, then prodded it. The prod got removed, but the article didn't improve, so I AfD'ed it. The AfD closed as no concensus, but since then I've had an IP editor challenge me repeatedly about it on my talk page. Since then, he's brought more sources to light that can be used to improve the article, so I've started to do that. It's concerned me though that there does seem to be a reliance on antagonistic and intimidatory language from people who feel that my work is a negative impact to the project.

Reviews[edit]

I do see the admin material in you. Admin review is a very positive step in gaining feedback and discussion over reforming the RfA process, a place where not many newcomers are willing to stick their head out to. Your content review and writing is impressive too. Let me know if you need a nomination when you feel ready; I think I am prepared to write an appraisal for you. - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a "full review", but I just wanted to point out that I am very impressed with your contributions so far as well, especially your undertaking of WP:RREV, which is no easy task! I'm glad you're here, and I echo Mailer Diablo's sentiments above. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your comments. The RfA review was set up because I felt I could offer a new approach to process analysis on Wikipedia in a way that hadn't been tried before. After getting encouragement and support for the work, I started to piece a proposal together. I'm really impressed by how it has caught the community and I'm really looking forward to crunching through the responses once we close this phase. As for my own future on WP, I've commented in the past that I'm not looking to take the mop - this is due in part to a constant feeling that I have an huge amount still to learn about the project. Although I can quickly pick up on the rules and guidelines used here, it is the spirit with which they are applied that takes time to understand. That is something that I feel can only be gained through interaction and collaboration with other editors. I'd also like to complete my process review first, as I feel being a deep participant in the process may colour my perceptions somewhat. This isn't intended as a "no never", more of a "not now", and that once I have gained further confidence, understanding and trust from my peers I'll give the proposal some deep thought. Till then, I'll do my best to develop myself here, although direction and guidance would be valuable in this area - you can never have too much advice. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 11:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that WayForward Technologies is on DYK. Good job! Anyway, no worries, take your time, no rush here. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I see a vast number of positive contributions by you. I will also echo Mailer here, as I think you'd be a fine candidate and an excellent addition to the list of admins. Take as long as you need, RfA isn't going anywhere any time soon (unless of course your current project changes things). Good luck and expect my support so long as you don't burn down the pedia directly after my timestamp. — _Maggot^Syn 14:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a lot of experience with you as an editor, but on discussions you have been extremely cooperative, civil, rational, and with a strong grasp of policy and guidelines. If anything ever comes up, you know how to find me, and I'll probably run into you at WP:VG anyway. Randomran (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am supposed to be on a wikibreak right now, since I am currently wikibonked, except it should be revisionbonked. Anyway, on to you, Gazimoff. I am certainly impressed by your efforts to harness community feeling on the RfA process which has been attempted quite a few times, but none, that I know of, have been as successful as this (even though its not finished yet). On the editing front, you probably need to up your edit count both in the Wikipedia space and Mainspace, but after your initiation of such a great collective-but-individual based review of the RfA process coupled with your great attitude towards other people, I should think you would not garner many in opposition. Rudget (logs) 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like everyone above me, I would like to tell you that you would make a great administrator (as I told you before on IRC :)). Unlike everyone above me, I'll try to add some criticism to my review:
- Speedy deletion area. This is a weak spot for you. I looked through your last 500 contribs and your last 500 deleted contribs and saw very little experience in speedy deletion tagging. I would suggest putting a little bit of time into WP:NPP.
- Huggle. I also see that you use huggle, and I warn you to be very careful. It's easy to make big (and small) mistakes with it.
- Mainspace to Projectspace ratio. You're doing pretty well, but I'd like to say that you should spend a little more time editing in the mainspace than you are. Maybe try for GAs, FAs, etc.

Other than those things, I can't really see anything else to give advice on. Just keep up the good work with RRev and I hope to see you at RFA sooner than later! :) Malinaccier (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy

Get The Orange Box featured and I'll nominate you at RfA. (To Sandy, if you're watching... he still needs to put the work in, I'm just offering to help. ;-))

I'm taking a break from trying to push that article to FA - I've been there twice with it unsuccessfully, so I'm trying to complete other projects first so that I can give it undivided attention :) Gazimoff ^Write _Read 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are civil, cooperative, helpful, etc. etc.
Taking 50 edits at random;

[1] - nothing confuses newbies more than throwing "WP:EL" at them. Pipe the link with a meaningful title (eg "external links guideline"). (Same with the RS link.) Also when you say "feel free to ask", they may be confused if you don't specify how... I'd always just add a link to my talk page.

I tend to say something along the lines of "check our guidelines on external links at WP:EL" in order to introduce the idea of shortcuts to someone, rather than piping a descriptive override. Good point about adding a talkpage link - must remember that (or change my sig)Gazimoff ^Write _Read 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2] could be considered edit warring. Let the discussion take place and as a result of it, re-add the content if you have consensus. Doesn't matter who the burden of proof lies with - you should be the bigger man in this.

That's a fair point - the final editwas to highlight in the edit summary that I'd raised the topic at WP:VG as much as anything else, along with leaving a note on the talkpage etc. As it is, I've made a commitment to merging it into WoW, so feel obliged to deliver on it. That's not disputing your point though, it is still very valid Gazimoff ^Write _Read 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3] - make sure you add two brackets in the edit summary link ;-) (I know it was a typo, just messing with ya!)

Heh, true :)Gazimoff ^Write _Read 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[4] ANI is also good for this sort of thing.

I'm hesitant about bringing things up at ANI - it's a very busy noticeboard with a lot of information that would be more suited to SSP, AIV, BLP/N and so on. I'm happy to take guidance on this though. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[5] it helps if you add links to where you leave a warning, etc.

Good point, well made.Gazimoff ^Write _Read 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[6] no harm in pointing out that you can't merge two Wikipedia accounts (as opposed to SUL'ing... and again, remember the thing about shortcut links).

Again, I used the idea of introducing shortcuts to someone. I wasn't sure on merging two WP accounts though. As it was, the editor didn't respond again.Gazimoff ^Write _Read 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[7] - no {{welcome}}?

I felt that as the editor already had a fairly busy talkpage, that a {{welcome}} was inappropriate. I'll have a think on this for the future though Gazimoff ^Write _Read 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I meant this edit. giggy _(:O) 08:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that one. God point, well made. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 09:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there you go... giggy _(:O) 08:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your thinking of the RfA Review process was quite a 'lightbulb', and you seem like someone with a high level of clue (as I mentioned in my RREV, a very important attribute). I don't know enough about you/your contribs to write a full review, but the RREV idea was fantastic (and something that, I feel, is needed). RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krator

Hey there Gazimoff,

I think you've done a great job on Wikipedia so far, and I wish all new editors would come with the same attitude and skills as you did when you first joined. Our encyclopaedia would be a much better place then. With that said, and you know you're doing a good job yourself too, I'll mostly focus on the things I think could use further improvement. I won't use any diffs or so, as I think you know what I mean most of the time.

When I 'adopted' you a few months ago, you wrote several times that the area you wished to know more about was Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I think I can safely say that you are well versed in policy now, judging by some of your contributions to AFD which show a good understanding of it. Sometimes it was very entertaining to watch your reading of Wikipedia policy. I follow WP:VG/D, and sometimes you cited the same thing you apparently read recently a couple of times in a row, and then a different essay, etc (for example, WP:SCRABBLE three times in a row). There's two things I think you could work on here. First, particularly before June, a lot of your contributions to AFD contained a lot of jargon and references to capitalised Wikipedia things. It is generally a good habit to use the least amount possible WP: shortcuts in your AFD contributions, particularly the contentious ones. Secondly, I'd like to see some more WP:IAR in there. As in, doing what is best instead of doing what fits policy. Not that I think you've been wrong consistently in any way, but doing something contra-policy will give you a better understanding of them. Don't seek this out, too, you'll find something along your path soon enough probably.

Then there's a clear suggestion, following up on the question directly above this review. I think that some dispute resolution experience would do you good, via WP:3O or WP:RFC or something. The antagonism you speak of happens quite often, and the dispute on the WoW page was quite timid in comparison to other things that happen around here. Because of the areas you're editing in (namely RFA and WP:VG, as far as I know), you're bound to be in the middle of a huge fight you didn't want to be in some time.

Hope this helps!

User:Krator (t c) 08:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely does help. I think that early on when I started participating in AfDs, I would cite policies and guidelines as a way of lending strength to an argument, or that I'd voice an agreement with the developing consensus, almost in a pile-on fashion. Since about May/June time, I've been evolving away from that, trying to use logical analysis to construct an argument either for or against, backing it up with policies where needed. Unfortunately as you've picked up, this logical approach doesn't lend itself too well to where common sense should apply, hence the lack of IAR usage. I'm aware of this limitation in my approac, as it crops up in other circles, and I'll try to pay more attention to this deficiency during my interactions on WP.

As for the 2nd option, I think that 3O or RfC might be a good venue for me to build my dispute resolution skills, as well as forming consensus more. I'll look into this more once I've finished the RfA review.

Many thanks for your feedback!Gazimoff ^Write _Read 12:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Gazimoff is a fine editor who has made my list of wise wikipedians. I'll focus my comments on AfDs in which we both participated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brawl Characters' Final Smashes (while I disagree with the sentiment that the article should be deleted, I like that Gazimoff is being conisderate and thinking of how to not "bite the newbies"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses (thoughtful comment in an AfD that clearly had no consensus to delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Earthworm Jim items (reasonable compromise rationale), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nintendo Power Covers (even though material exists elsewhere, it does not mean we should not also cover it), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Reaver (again, reasonable rationale for compromise that ended up being consistent with the close), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog (we were both in agreement here, but the important thing is that you also looked for sources), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titans (Crash of the Titans) (obviously disagree per reasons stated throughout discussion, but my main suggestion is that while I went back and forth with a number of editors over the various improvements, I don't believe you acknowledged one war or the other whether the improvements changed your mind and I believe returning to discussions is important), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultima Online timeline (again, just because content is covered elsewhere does not mean we can't also cover it), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video games notable for negative reception (2nd nomination) (good final comment for the regular discussion), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WayForward Technologies (while I disagree with the argument, I do like that you worked on the article), and finally reasonable comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xena: Warrior Princess: The Talisman of Fate, which were consistent with the close. I hope that helps! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]