Wikipedia:Editor review/Go Phightins!

Go Phightins!
I have been around for probably a year and a half and kind of go off and on with my contributions. I'm just looking for some feedback and during a future spurt may be interested in applying for an RFA. Thanks in advance. Go Phightins! (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I concentrate my contributions in two areas: sports and politics. I have created articles on several NFL assistant coaches, Joe Paterno's son Jay, the White House Deputy Press Secretary, and a candidate running for congress in my district (which was deleted, and after re-reading WP:POLITICIAN rightfully so). I contribute to AFD discussions and am somewhat of an deletionist. Of the articles I've nominated, the success rate is about 50/50. I rewrote the article on Eric Bruntlett.
 * 1) 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.
 * I have vehemently disagreed with other editors and interpretations of policies, but always try to assume good faith and respect the opinions of others, especially since many have been around longer than I have. I have never received any warnings or anything of that nature. AFD discussions often result in fundamental disagreements and they do annoy me some times when they don't go my way, but that's the beauty of achieving consensus. Though I feel I am always right, if 5 others disagree, it's in the best interest the community at large to do it their way for now.
 * 1) Are there any areas of Wikipedia you wish to become more involved in than you currently are (or are not at all involved in right now)?  What motivates your interest in those areas?  Are there any areas of Wikipedia you want to become involved less with right now?  Why?
 * I would like to get a little more involved in content creation and improvement. I've been trying to focus on bringing Jim Thome up to GA, but as soon as I get involved, someone inevitably seems to flip out about something I did (usually a newbie or an IP to whom I issued a general note for blanking or something) and I end up having to go 10 rounds there. Articles for creation is something I've been trying to get more involved in, the backlog there is horrific and needs to be addressed, so I try to help out there but I'd like to do more. As for what I'd like to do less, I would say, and this sounds kind of crass, but welcoming new users. Posting welcome templates is a tedious process when you're looking through New Editors Contributions on recent changes and trying to find editors who have made contributions that aren't vandalism, but haven't had anything posted on their talk page. I'm trying to help out newbies through the Teahouse more rather than trying to operate a "One-Man Teahouse" if you will going at all questions on my own. I probably will continue to be on the Welcoming Committee because I enjoy conversing with new users, but my expertise could probably be better applied elsewhere.
 * 1) How do you think you will further improve Wikipedia by being an administrator?  That is, what benefit will being an admin afford you that you wouldn't be able to do as a normal user?
 * Adminship is a long-term goal of mine (as in 4-6, maybe even 12 months) ...I do a lot of work in vandalism reverting and think that as soon as it's clear an editor is not making constructive contributions and is on Wikipedia solely to vandalize, they need to be blocked. It takes entirely too long for them to be blocked and, as a result, they tend to make more and more of a mess for others to clean up. Additionally, CSD has a backlog of blatantly promotional pages as well as attack pages which, though blanked when tagged under that criterion, can still be viewed through the page history. Chipping away at the backlog and deleting those blatant violations needs to be done as soon as possible. Finally, AFD is an area where I've participated quite a lot and discussions often seem to go longer than 7 days even once consensus has been determined.
 * 1) How do you think you will further improve Wikipedia by being an administrator?  That is, what benefit will being an admin afford you that you wouldn't be able to do as a normal user?
 * Adminship is a long-term goal of mine (as in 4-6, maybe even 12 months) ...I do a lot of work in vandalism reverting and think that as soon as it's clear an editor is not making constructive contributions and is on Wikipedia solely to vandalize, they need to be blocked. It takes entirely too long for them to be blocked and, as a result, they tend to make more and more of a mess for others to clean up. Additionally, CSD has a backlog of blatantly promotional pages as well as attack pages which, though blanked when tagged under that criterion, can still be viewed through the page history. Chipping away at the backlog and deleting those blatant violations needs to be done as soon as possible. Finally, AFD is an area where I've participated quite a lot and discussions often seem to go longer than 7 days even once consensus has been determined.
 * Adminship is a long-term goal of mine (as in 4-6, maybe even 12 months) ...I do a lot of work in vandalism reverting and think that as soon as it's clear an editor is not making constructive contributions and is on Wikipedia solely to vandalize, they need to be blocked. It takes entirely too long for them to be blocked and, as a result, they tend to make more and more of a mess for others to clean up. Additionally, CSD has a backlog of blatantly promotional pages as well as attack pages which, though blanked when tagged under that criterion, can still be viewed through the page history. Chipping away at the backlog and deleting those blatant violations needs to be done as soon as possible. Finally, AFD is an area where I've participated quite a lot and discussions often seem to go longer than 7 days even once consensus has been determined.

 Reviews 


 * Hi Go Phightins! I thought I'd drop your review here, rather than my talk page or yours. I notice you've had some great advice from a couple of other editors I respect and it's very likely I'll be repeating some of it. That's fairly normal, we've all experienced RfA in similar ways, so will have similar opinions.
 * I'd suggest you opt in to this edit counter. It makes reviewing you much easier. As you've got less than 1500 edits, it's not the end of the world, but in the future, making things easier for those who are trying to review you reflects well upon you. Similarly, I'd suggest you turn on the CSD log feature of Twinkle, which will allow non-admins to see how good you are at CSDs.
 * Now, I see that you've recently got into editing Wikipedia, in earnest, since the end of July. That's great, and it's going to stand you in good stead for the future. Generally, at RfA, people look for a good 6-12 months of solid contributions, such as the ones you are now doing.
 * You're working in AfD, and giving good opinions on whether the articles in question should be deleted rather than "me too" style opinions. I see you've nominated a few for deletion too, but had to withdraw a substantial proportion of them due to the article being fixed up. Now, that's not a bad thing, but it's also not a great thing, as it does imply you could be more thorough with your nomination procedures. An example is Articles for deletion/Donte Paige-Moss, where there's loads of sources regarding the subject, but you've implied the they are still not notable, because the sources are not in the article. It doesn't quite work that way here.
 * Looking at your deleted edits, I don't see anything worrying.
 * Articles, I've just checked a couple of the ones you've created out, and they're looking alright for the most part. However, I would suggest you spend a little time building the articles up and attempting to get them reviewed by your peers. If you can get a few up to "Good Article" level, that would be a great start. Even a fair number of DYKs wouldn't hurt.
 * So, overall, things look pretty good for where you are now. The statistics show that almost no editors in the past 3-4 years have passed an RfA with less than 3000 edits, and the average is well over 10k, so I do think you need to show you have a bit more experience. Just because I don't believe you'd pass an RfA, that doesn't mean you don't have the makings of a great admin in the future. I'd suggest a good 6 months working in the matter you are, then asking for a further review. Most importantly, keep getting involved!  Worm TT( talk ) 11:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, I will take that into account--Go Phightins! (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Quick question, does the CSD tool work as soon as I click save on the twinkle preferences page? And what do I put on a user sub-page to denote that I've opted in to the editing statistics page? Go Phightins! (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Have your questions here been answered yet? AutomaticStrikeout 20:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, thanks-- Go  Phightins  !  23:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Review by AutomaticStrikeout You've been doing quite well, from what I have seen. You have helped in different areas, content contributions, AfD's, starting up a subproject, etc. Keep up the good work. AutomaticStrikeout 20:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe you made a mistake in your third opinion at Talk:Kyrsten Sinema. The sort of sources that SPA was digging up such as traffic tickets, public lawyer records, court transcripts are definitely a BLP violation.  I added another opinion and blanked the BLP violating material from the talk page. Gigs (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Really impressed with the breadth of work you do here. I see evidence of strong participation at AfD, in content creation, in monitoring AfC, engaging new users (and the fact that you were doing it solo before The Teahouse is definitely a plus in my book, even if you thought it wasn't always effective).
 * A couple of comments:
 * These kinds of edit summaries, while I am sure the situation was frustrating, do not reflect well on you. Whenever there is an edit war, remember to stay cool, even in your edit summaries.
 * Yeah, that wasn't one of my finer moments. Not that this is an excuse, but I think that was after midnight when I'd already had a rough day. I'll watch this. Go   Phightins  !  19:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You said above that you want to close AfDs because some tend to last longer than 7 days, even the ones with reasonable consensus. I do see you've been participating at AfDs, which is excellent; I would also recommend learning and getting some practice with doing non-admin closures of AfDs or otherwise.  You might also consider helping out with assessing consensus at the requests for closure noticeboard.
 * You might want to make your "articles created" link on your userpage a bit more visible whenever you decide to RfA it up.
 * I'd also recommend getting some DYKs and becoming familiar with that process. I've gotten a handful myself, so let me know if you need any help!
 * I know I'll be repeating some of the sentiments above, but I'm very pleased with your work here so far. It'll be easy for me to watch you from here an out, as we tend to run in the same circles anyway!   I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)