Wikipedia:Editor review/GO-PCHS-NJROTC

GO-PCHS-NJROTC
Hello, I'm User:GO-PCHS-NJROTC], and I'm here to determine how the community feels about my actions here on Wikipedia. I wish to become an administrator, and while I understand that this is not a review as an RfA canidate, I feel that a good administrator must also be a good editor, and that having admin power just means there is a few extra gadgets at the top of the screen. I found this place at User:Balloonman/How to pass an RfA. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Hello, GO-PCHS-NJROTC! In the next few days I will be conducting a series of editorial review for you. In the meanwhile, I just have a few quick concerns:


 * Your user name is indecipherable. Consider changing it to a name that is easier to remember and write for other editors. You do not have to change your user name, but at least change your signature. I'm saying this because my user name was in the same situation as yours, and I had to change my signature as requested by other editors =)


 * Caps lock are never welcomed, no matter where it is being used.


 * Your first impression to me is a avid vandal fighter. While there is nothing wrong with that, it is generally not the best impression you want to have. This is a encyclopedia, and you want to have a impression as a good editor.

I like your dedication to the Port Charlotte High School article. We do have a couple high school articles that is featured status, so your objective is very reasonable. However, I would like to see you exposing yourself to more controversial topics as a challenge.

Aquarius &#149; talk 16:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review! However, there are a few things I would like you to clarify. Firstly, when you say more controversial topics, do you mean controversial subjects such as The Holy Bible and Global warming, or do you mean controversial articles such as JROTC and Bonzi Buddy? Also, do you have any suggestions for the username issue? GO-PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 03:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

 Comments 


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

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I like my contributions to Port Charlotte High School and WP:ABUSE the most. When I first came to Wikipedia, Port Charlotte High School was an unreferenced stub. Now it is an almost completely referenced start, and I hope to make that article an FA eventually. I'm also proud of my contributions to WP:ABUSE; I have investigated many abuse reports, contacted many ISPs, and gotten many vandals put out of commission. One unpopular case in my WP:ABUSE history was the Mmbabies case (see this page) that I took on a few months ago. Although I supposedly was disruptive on WP:Long term abuse/Mmbabies, the case has been closed successfully, and we have not seen Mmbabies in several months (and I think that the disruption was caused mainly by Rio de oro, and that I got tagged with a lot of his crap even though I didn't agree with his disruptive behavior in the first place). I also closed a WP:ABUSE case with User:LBHS Cheerleader (see this page) where I had received more positive attention (see the ribbon bar on my talk page). Of the smaller cases, I've closed many cases that have been less of a headache, mostly school IPs because that's mainly what gets reported to WP:ABUSE. I might be working on the whole Grawp situation too. I've already reported some of the Grawp IPs.
 * 1) 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, OTHER USERS HAVE CAUSED ME STRESS! (: User:Mmbabies, User:LBHS Cheerleader, User:Grawp, and a few IP vandals to be exact. :) But it hasn't slowed me down. As mentioned above, there was a little incident with the Long term abuse/Mmbabies case where a few editors there were outraged over some comments made by User:Rio de oro, and yes, a few comments I made. However, since I was working with User:Rio de oro to get Mmbabies shut down, a lot his comments were also pinned on me. Yes, I did make a few disruptive comments on there, but I didn't make too many disruptive comments on there, and I was never warned. I actually warned Rio de oro that his comments were unacceptable. My biggest problem in the case was retaliation, which was out of rage when I proceeded to the page to deliver good news and was then stunned by a particular user's proposal. Retaliation is childish and pointless, however, and I generally don't approve of it. Sigh, I'm glad that fish is fried. It is never good to retaliate or freak out when approached by conflict, on or off wiki. I intended to retire the night that I retaliated, so I did not care at that time what happened with my account. It's better to assume good faith and respond to conflict calmly than to raise hell and panic. I know that. I've known that. I wouldn't raise hell here unless I intended it to be my last edit. In months past, I have sometimes been uncivil, but more recently, and in the future, my behavior always is civil and assumes good faith.
 * ''YES, OTHER USERS HAVE CAUSED ME STRESS! (: User:Mmbabies, User:LBHS Cheerleader, User:Grawp, and a few IP vandals to be exact. :) But it hasn't slowed me down. As mentioned above, there was a little incident with the Long term abuse/Mmbabies case where a few editors there were outraged over some comments made by User:Rio de oro, and yes, a few comments I made. However, since I was working with User:Rio de oro to get Mmbabies shut down, a lot his comments were also pinned on me. Yes, I did make a few disruptive comments on there, but I didn't make too many disruptive comments on there, and I was never warned. I actually warned Rio de oro that his comments were unacceptable. My biggest problem in the case was retaliation, which was out of rage when I proceeded to the page to deliver good news and was then stunned by a particular user's proposal. Retaliation is childish and pointless, however, and I generally don't approve of it. Sigh, I'm glad that fish is fried. It is never good to retaliate or freak out when approached by conflict, on or off wiki. I intended to retire the night that I retaliated, so I did not care at that time what happened with my account. It's better to assume good faith and respond to conflict calmly than to raise hell and panic. I know that. I've known that. I wouldn't raise hell here unless I intended it to be my last edit. In months past, I have sometimes been uncivil, but more recently, and in the future, my behavior always is civil and assumes good faith.