Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2)

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

TheGeneralUser (2)

TheGeneralUser (talk · contribs · count) I am now requesting a second Editor review because i believe now the time has come for me to be get reviewed again by the Wikipedia Community regarding my editing so far and a possible candidate for Adminship. Here is my first editor review which happened in March and April, 2012 (Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser). I had started my Wikipedia journey on June 30, 2011 and like many other users started it out slowly but then i had started actively editing over time and am now a major active user on Wikipedia for over a year. This second editor review is very important for me because i plan to run for Adminship on English Wikipedia soon, in around 2-3 months average and need to know all opinions, suggestions and views which will be suitable and helpful for me regarding my editing and possible Adminship. So everyone, feel free to give me your reviews as what you actually think and be truthful from both your mind and heart. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2012 (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 is my main area of focus and editing which is in the Maintenance and Administration of various areas of the project. I regularly go to various random articles and write article content and do various types of things like like grammar correction, spelling/typo correction, cleanup and tagging for possible issues, etc. And i have also written some article content to some articles. My major area of editing in the maintenance and administration are 1)-Reporting suspected sockpuppets to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations where almost all the accounts i have reported have been confirmed matches. 2)- Reporting persistent and obvious vandal and spammer user accounts on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, 3) Reporting those usernames which clearly violate Wikipedia:Username policy to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, and Checking Special:Recentchanges for checking various type of edits from IP address and user accounts including new ones. I also frequently patrol Special:Newpages and check for obvious pages which meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and tag those articles, but it is not my main area of focus and once i become and editor i will continue to patrol new pages like any other regular user and would delete only those pages which are obvious utter nonsense like hate pages and pages made for trolling and vandalism only and report the rest as usual. I very much help my fellow Wikipedians like welcoming newcomers, answering questions who ask for help on my talk page or located at Category:Wikipedians looking for help and sometimes even Category:Wikipedians looking for help from administrators to answer their questions and also point them to the right direction and noticeboard like Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:Teahouse for more query, help and details. Other than this i regularly give Wikilove to my fellow Wikipedians to make them feel happy and making them feel proud for being a part of the Wikipedia community and by making it a more clam, civil and friendly place to be.
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.
As i had already said in my first editor review, I have never been in any major editing dispute and no user has ever caused me any stress. Only a few minor article issues which were quickly resolved in quick and no time which happened many months ago. I have and will always talk and discuss before making any major changes to articles and any of Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines. If an editing dispute do occurs then I would first talk and discuss the matter of the article and user talk page of the concerned/involved users and if that does not resolve (which happens a few times) then i would take the dispute to an appropriate noticeboard according to the type of dispute it is and inform all the concerned and involved editors for it. But I try my best not to take things there and will always try my best to solve any editing or other type of disputes in an easy, quick and as much friendly way as possible.

Reviews

Review by AutomaticStrikeout.

Well, when I clicked on your edit count as linked above, I noticed a couple things. First of all, your edit count is quite low, not quite 4,500, and, regardless of whether or not it's fair, that could be a significant hindrance to any RfA. However, on the bright side, I did see that you have been editing across numerous namespaces, that shows experience in different areas. From what I've seen, you seem to be a very ambitious and enthusiastic type, a go-getter so to speak, and that's a good thing. You asked for us to be truthful, and if I was to be honest, I'd have to say I don't think you're ready yet for an RfA (I'm not either, for what it's worth). That being said, you're doing a fabulous job here and your contributions are very helpful. Keep it up and when the time comes, someone will nominate you for the mop. AutomaticStrikeout 19:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Electriccatfish.

I'm here as per your request on my talk page. Please don't be disheartened by any of my comments. They are intended as constructive criticism, and I believe that one day, you will make a great admin. You are still a valued contributor and member of our community.

Statistics: Your edit count (currently at about 4,500) is a bit on the low side. I believe that edit counts don't matter that much. Furthermore, I have over 11,500 under my belt and I'm not a sysop and don't intend to go for RFA for at least another 4-8 months. Having 27% edits to article space is a bit, considering that we are primarily an encyclopedia.

Anti-Vandalism: You mentioned that your greatest contribution to Wikipedia is in the filed on anti-vandalism, including RC Patrol, SPI, UAA, and AIV. Anti-vandalism admins generally need to get tens of thousands of edits because of the automated nature of vandal-fighting. I see that you have 28 UAA reports and 106 AIV reports. That's also a bit on the low side, especially if you want to work primarily in anti-vandalism as an admin. Your anti-vandalism work looks good from a first glance, but as an admin, you'll be mainly working the noticeboards, and your edits there are a bit on the low side.

New Page Patrol: Another area you expressed interest in working in CSD. I was looking at this tool, since you don't have a CSD log and I found many declined CSDs, primarily A7's. Generally, a candidate who wants to work in speedy deletion should have a CSD accuracy percentage of at least 95%. I'd also recommend starting up a CSD log to track your CSD nominations.

XFDs: One of the best ways to learn about our deletion policies is by XFD. I see that you've voted in only 4 of them, but most admin candidates (even who don't express interest in working in XFDs) have voted in at least 150 before going for adminship.

Article Creation: Article creation is a hot-button issue at RFA right now, and is one of the reasons why I wouldn't pass if I went for it now (I have only 20 articles). You have created only 1 article so far (and a dab and page). This is a bit low, according to what people are looking for at an RFA. Try getting a few articles to DYK, if possible, and maybe even a GA. After all, we are an encyclopedia and we wouldn't be what we are without articles.

SPI: SPI seems to be your greatest strength right now, and you've been extremely helpful in that area. I'd recommend becoming an SPI clerk in a few months. A few of the clerks there are non-admins. Keep up the excellent work at SPI!

In Conclusion I think that you'd be best holding off a while from an RFA. You're one of our best editors, but I'd recommend a bit more experience before becoming an admin. You're definitely on the right track, though. Other editors told me in my Editor review (which closed at the end of June) that I wasn't ready for adminship yet. Remember that admins are just normal editors with a few extra tools, and it's really not a big deal. I hope that my review hasn't disheartened you or made you feel bad in any way. It was meant as pure constructive criticism. You are still a great editor and a great, civil, nice, and friendly member of the community and I look forward to collaborating with you in the near future :). Best, Electric Catfish 21:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Review by Riley Huntley.

As mentioned above, you are definitely on the right track but you need to work on a few things. Instead of repeating what has already been said, I will just skip to what hasn't been mentioned. Edit summaries! Many users would oppose your RfA just because you have a lower percent of edit summaries. From what I have seen, most users prefer a candidate to use edit summaries at least 90% of the time. From now on, I suggest you add at least one word into your edit summary each time you edit. Your edit summary percentage can be found here. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 22:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Kudpung.

I'm also here in response to your request on my talk page. I don't see any conflictual or civility issues, and I can see you are full of enthusiasm, but my comments are based on your experience. I haven't checked the archives of the noticeboards, so some of the comments here are general advice. What follows may sound harsh, but do take it in good faith and don't get disheartened because it is what my oppose rationale would look like if you were to run for adminship any time soon. So here goes:

Edit count way is too low with only 1,132 to mainspace with and when the automated edits are deducted this leaves effectively only 355; successful admins will need at least 10 times that many. Remember that we are here primarily to build an encyclopedia and of your 3 creations, one is a dab page, one is a redirect, and one is a short stub created nearly a year ago with no content whatsoever (a possible candidate for deletion) . You need experience, but be aware that chiming on issues at AN or ANI if you are not involved or have concrete evidence to offer is generally not helpful - it's not a voting process (that's reserved for RfC and RfC/U) and admins are generally able to make up their own minds. A random check of 10 of your deletions in July showed 9 of them to have been incorrectly tagged for CSD. Some were completely wrong criteria, while others did not meet any CSD criteria at all and should have been PRODed. You have only voted on 4 AfD and none of these matched the result. Deletion stuff is where admins are generally most active and here you do not have near enough experience to be able to demonstrate that you are sufficiently familiar with the policies and guidelines, even if you were. We haven't had many candidates for adminship this year but we are still generally able to to cope with the most urgent backlogs. There is no urgency for anyone to become an admin and the longer you wait the greater your chances of success will be - unless of course you leave it so long that all the users you have warned for various things come and oppose with a vengeance (it does happen) - remember that admins will of necessity get involved in contentious issues and you need to demonstrate that you can handle them with a cool head. One of the first places people look to evaluate admin candidates is their talk page and it's important for admin's discussions to be easily accessible if they or anyone else wants to quickly access and cite some older comments. There is no hard and fast rule requiring talk pages to be archived, but as a courtesy to others (and to make it easier for yourself), you may wish to start an archive system - just blanking the page now and again is not very helpful. You were given a helpful suggestion recently but although you responded, you still haven't followed up on it. One final piece of advice: Check you grammar and always review your work and comments before saving them.

Pages to read: WP:NPP, WP:DELETION, WP:Advice for RfA candidates, User:Kudpung/RfA criteria, and don't hesitate for a moment to ask me on my talk page if you would like help or advice with anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Vibhijain

As others have said, your edit count is generally low than what the guys at RfA expect, but the think which disturbs me more is the Article count. Anti-Vandalism fighters do have many edits on the talk page, but a Article-User talk edits ratio of 27.64-36.09 would unfortunately gain you many opposes. I received the second most no. of opposes in my RfA due to the edit summary usage, however I have been continually improving it since then, and I guess that it is 100% now. It will be also helpful to you if you could use them, as they allow easy navigation of contributions. As a reviewer, one needs to know your grip on article policies, and for that they would generally expect at-least one article on which you contributed greatly, and a good no of edits on it. Your work in SPA is great. I requires a great deal of experience and maturity to work on that area, and I can guarantee you that it will be beneficial for you in the RfA. As an ending note, the more time you will give to yourself for the RfA, the more you will be benefited. Try to do some article work in the next 6 months, continuing your work at SPA, and most probably your RfA shall reserve one more mop. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to echo the above comments that you need to do more work on articles before considering adminship; it is extremely difficult to pass RfA now without a good amount of content work, and a lack of article work combined with the impression that you "want to be an admin" will doom nearly any RfA. Unfortunately, I also think that your mass-posting of requesting input for your review has probably ended any chance of you passing RfA for at least the next six months: while you explained here and here that you weren't seeking votes and were just contacting editors you know and trust, it will be seen as campaigning for an RfA and will garner a lot of opposition. Going to positives, I see you around often and think you are a friendly person and will make a great admin one day. :) You are interested in what other people have to say about you, and that's good. Just keep up what you've been doing, do some more article work, and perhaps most of all concentrate more on having a fun and productive time here rather than focusing on becoming an admin. A failure to listen to the advice of others is a guaranteed ticket to an unsuccessful RfA, so be sure to take in all the advice here. Best. Acalamari 15:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Tylas ✫ ♥♫

I see that others have chimed in on details of your editing, however you are so full of the type of enthusiasm I would love to see generated throughout WP. There is no doubt in my mind that your generosity and good heartedness are a great benefit to the WP community. For now, work on completing articles that you have started or find some others that interest you and practice working with other editors. Being an admin is not going to be all sunshine, but then again you just might have what is needed to bring some of that sunshine to each project you are involved in. My best advice is to be yourself, and not get lost. If being yourself means you want to be an admin, then you have some work to do. Relax and enjoy the process - the goal will be reached when the time is right. Keep working with Dave and you will get there before you know it. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 18:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dennis Brown

It looks like you are getting some excellent advice here. In particular, I would echo Kudpung's comments. I have conducted a more formal review at User:Dennis Brown/RfA/TheGeneralUser and will just link to it rather than rehash all the content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Yngvadottir

I'm going to slant this toward a run for admin, since you have mentioned having that in mind, but the usual caveat that nobody can accurately predict what will happen in an RfA goes double for me; I was a really strange RfA candidate and am an eccentric admin :-) I'd also like to say that I'm only doing this because you asked, and I hope you won't be hurt or discouraged by anything I say, but take it as well-meant advice. I will of course be happy to explain anything. So ... three pointers.

First of all: you've been working hard at being useful to the project, but your lack of article writing is still a weak point. I suggest you fill out that article you started; make at least one redlink (preferably on a very different topic) into a neatly organized and well referenced little article; and also pick one or more cleanup activities from Wikipedia:Maintenance (wikifying unwikified articles, for example) and build up a solid amount of work of that kind. Doing these things not only demonstrates your commitment to what the project exists for, but also gives you invaluable experience of what articles look like when they aren't deletion candidates - the ways in which they can be written and referenced, what kinds of sneaky vandalism and cruft lurk in the corners, and so forth.
Your grammar and usage are a bit weak. I'm not sure what to advise to fix this, but for an RfA, you need to be aware that one thing many people are judging you on is written communications, both because we're a writing project and because admins have to communicate with a lot of editors who may be riled up or confused. So, proofread what you write; consider getting instruction or tutoring of some sort; basically, be aware of the issue and see if you can reduce the problem. It's not just grammar but also word choice. For example, I have no problem with your note on my talk page asking me to contribute here, but you began the header with "Your review is required". That's a bit strong. I'd have said "requested".
I'm flattered when you drop me a line on my talk page about articles whose notability you consider dubious, but I have to wonder why you don't yourself do a search and then AfD them? (You could still drop me a link to the AfD '-)) An AfD can always be withdrawn by the nominator if others find oodles of sources, or snow-closed as delete if it turns out to be obvious the nominator is right. Show boldness a little more often - The community doesn't want autocratic admins, but it does generally expect admins to be decisive. More broadly, a constant at RfA is "Does this person really need the tools?" You should give some thought to why you want to be an admin - what you believe you need the tools for - and going a little more out on a limb (I'm not suggesting you turn into a deletionist whirlwind so that you get told to throttle it back because you're overwhelming AfD) will demonstrate that it's not just a campaign speech. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

I also agree. You are doing fine, but you need to show sustained commitment rather than generalized (though laudable) enthusiasm. You've convinced us you want to be a significant part of this project, but it still looks like you're looking for your niche. But I agree, writing an article would be a good way of showing commitment. If you want suggestions, let me know. And also agree on the edit count. If you are not already doing it, start monitoring WT:RFA and the requests for adminship that come through. Be aware of the issues that are bothering people who are a part of WT:RFA and start thinking about your position on those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Elockid.

I don't have any major concerns and I think you're doing fine. There's areas where I'd recommend working more on. Content creation/addition of content/updating content, etc. is the first. I myself have no problem with admins lacking content creation (some of our best admins are gnomes), but there's a number of people who will oppose during your RfA for that very reason. Perhaps spending a little more time in WP:WikiProject Business or WP:WikiProject Economics (I'm assuming that you're interested in this area since it's in your userpage). The lack of being in disputes is one of the biggest issues. Users generally want to see how you'd actually react in times of stress, how you act, your behavior, etc. People may view this as a lack of experience. Also, one of the most important qualities an admins needs to have is good communication. The high number of automated messages may make people think twice (communication in content creation is what's ideal). Lastly, you may get some more opposes since you've indicated that you're on a Wikibreak. Another reason for opposing would be concerns with how active/committed you're going to be. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by PrincessAlice13

I have to agree with Elockid and other members. You're doing just fine! I see you have some valuable advice from other Wikipedians and I'll probably say the same thing- you're friendly, kind, enthusiastic and a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. You're also on the right track to becoming an Admin, but first I'd say edit more articles and contribute on lots of different article talk pages. That way you'll get to know other Wikipedians better and you should also learn how do deal with things like disagreements and disputes. On the whole, I'd say there are no problems really and good luck! Also, I am here as per request on my talk page, so please don't be dissapointed about my review! I don't want to disheart you in any way, you're one of the best contributors! Enjoy your day! :) --PrincessAlice13 (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2012 (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.