Wikipedia:Editor review/Ginsengbomb

Ginsengbomb
Hello there! I've been an on-again off-again editor since 2006. I've recently (since October of 2009) become much more active, after a rather prolonged absence from significant activity since 2007. I'm trying to get more involved with Wiki space tasks... AFD's, ANI (which is a hornet's nest but a fascinating one), etc. I'm actively trying to branch out into new things, just to increase my general knowledge. I have extensive experience in vandalism patrolling, new page patrolling, etc. Regardless, I'd love to get some feedback about my contributions. I'm interested in getting more into dispute resolution (which is something I excel at in real life, at least), and may be interested in pursuing adminship down the road, which is another reason feedback seems like a good idea at this point. Anyway, that's that for now. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I am not an article creator, so I can't immediately highlight this (I've got a whopping two articles created to my credit: Bryan Scary and The Shredding Tears). I am very proud of my contributions to vandal reversion, and find participating in AFDs increasingly rewarding, as well as other various tasks. These tasks are pleasing because I am a huge believer in Wikipedia, a huge believer in making sure it is as high quality a resource as possible, and a huge believer in Wiki-ing in general, which makes solid application of the various guidelines critical.
 * 1) Have you been in any disputes 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 have never been in an editing "dispute," assuming that means some kind of reversion or content-based dispute. I have had disagreements on occasion, and one or two where I regret having allowed myself to become too personally involved. I think my primary source of regret is a conflict which can be viewed primarily on my talk page here . I attempted to resolve a dispute between two editors in an amicable fashion and basically ended up getting a little riled up when one of the editors took my attempt at resolution the wrong way. A third party came in and duly chastised me and, while I didn't entirely agree with his interpretation of events, at that point I did finally come to my senses and simply agreed to disagree. In the future, I would be more diligent in not letting my "feathers get ruffled" in such situations. I certainly feel I could have handled things differently in this situation.
 * I have never been in an editing "dispute," assuming that means some kind of reversion or content-based dispute. I have had disagreements on occasion, and one or two where I regret having allowed myself to become too personally involved. I think my primary source of regret is a conflict which can be viewed primarily on my talk page here . I attempted to resolve a dispute between two editors in an amicable fashion and basically ended up getting a little riled up when one of the editors took my attempt at resolution the wrong way. A third party came in and duly chastised me and, while I didn't entirely agree with his interpretation of events, at that point I did finally come to my senses and simply agreed to disagree. In the future, I would be more diligent in not letting my "feathers get ruffled" in such situations. I certainly feel I could have handled things differently in this situation.

 Reviews 

It is obvious to me that Ginsengbomb is passionate about vandalism and pages marked for deletion. Thanx so much for your feedback! by Awfief (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ginsengbomb, here is my review...


 * User conduct
 * Edit summaries: You use them on practically every edit (not just the automated ones) - so it is clear what you have done in your edit. This makes it easier for other editors who are watching the page to see what's happening - very good!
 * Constructive comments on talk pages: Your comments are with the clear intention of improving the article in question, and making a better encyclopedia.
 * Attitude towards others: It was interesting reading your old talk page archives - I got lost in them! You are very willing to help explain your actions, and to explain why you have reverted edits. Your attitude towards others is one of being helpful, but not being condescending or patronising - a very useful one to have, as it makes the issues you are discussing clear to the reader.


 *  Edits
 * Automated Edits: About 60% of all your edits are automated (mainly using Huggle). I didn't notice any problems, you seem to be using Huggle and Twinkle accurately - but if you were to go for an RfA in the future, some editors might hold this level of automated editing against you (for example, on my personal RfA standards, 60-69% is in the "inclined to neutral" column!)
 * Article vs non-article: Although almost 50% of your edits are to articles, with the automated edits this means realistically about 20% of your edits are actual edits rather than vandalism-reverts. This is not too bad, but again, some editors would say that it is a low figure, should you go for adminship.


 * RfA
 * CSD: Most of your tagging seems to be accurate, as I didn't find many that were declined.
 * PROD: Similarly, it appears that most of the articles which you PRODed were deleted.
 * xfD: Your contributions are well-thought-out, and generally in line with the final consensus
 * ANI/AN: I don't see any problems here - you only contribute if you have something to say that is of use to the discussion, and your contributions are well thought-out.
 * Contributions to RfAs: I only see two contributions, but in both cases (one support and one oppose), you clearly showed your thoughts and the reasoning behind your !vote
 * Previous RfAs: N/A


 * Summary
 * First, I would like to say that I have enjoyed reading the various contributions you have made! I also like "A Bit About the Punic Wars" on your talk page :D
 * I would also like to point out that this has only been a quick review - were you to go for adminship, I would look at your contributions in a lot more detail.
 * On the whole, you seem to be doing a good job. You are doing a valuable job with your vandalism patrols, and are being accurate - which is very important.
 * I hope this review is helpful, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)