Wikipedia:Editor review/Jersey Devil

User:Jersey Devil
I'm just here to see what other editors think about me and my edits. I previously had an RFA which failed, though most of the oppose votes were because of lack of edit summaries which I have since improved. Anyway, I'm not really here for that, just want to get some feedback. Jersey Devil 18:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * I've noticed Jersey Devil make some very sensible, level headed, and swift descisions to improve the encyclopedia by afd'ing bad categories, pages and other bits and bobs that are not up to scratch. Jersey also expands knowledge on various subjects that are under-represented on wikipedia. For this he should be commended as a highly valued editor, and one that I would trust to approach a problematic issue with a sensible head. I haven't identified any areas for improvement yet! Keep up the good work.--Zleitzen 06:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll state first off that your use of edit summaries is vastly improved, which is the reason I opposed your RfA. Reviewing your edits of late, I only really see two things that give me pause.  One is your actions at El País regarding your fair use image being replaced.  You added it back in a different place, but probably an article that size does not need two images, especially when a free one is already available.  If you decide to go to adminship again, I would recommend that you thoroughly understand fair use.  The other thing is your reaction the editors who approached you ( and ) about moving Requests for adminship/Striver to the main page. No specific policy, but this amounted to a couple people pretty civilly saying "it's bad form" and explaining why, but you still got really defensive about it.  That kinda stuff happens every day to admins who delete/protect/block etc., and have to have the ability to go, "Yeah I screwed up, sorry." and carry on smartly. Good luck! --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello there, Jersey Devil, how are you doing? Here are some thoughts. Considering you have already been nominated, I will believe you are aiming at becoming administrator.
 * Indeed, you have improved your edit summary. I still don't understand why editors prefer "shortcuts" in summaries like rm, rv, rvv, etc, when it takes just an extra second to add a full word, the summary is not 200 characters long, and those are non-friendly with new users, but I would not object a RFA because of that (even though I would suggest using words instead of acronyms).
 * Personally, I don't like when people put massive amounts of external links in their user page. However, in your case this is not much of a problem, as those links appear to be notable on their own.
 * I also notice a you have actively contributed to Wikipedia in the last year, with an average of 500 edits per month. As I said in a previous Editor Review, it is good to see you have found your "magic number" of contributions per month that allows you to spend enough time inside and outside Wikipedia.
 * Your contributions to Peru-related topics are greatly appreciated, and hopefully you will continue working there even if you become an administrator.
 * Good amount of user talk and article talk edits, shows an interest in discussing personally and in group. Also, good amount of Wikipedia namespace edits.
 * Reviewing some reverts, I find this questionable, not because of the revert itself, but because you used a blatant vandalism tag in the user talk page. You indented the tag, which means you considered the previous warning when imposing the new one, although the previous warning was over two months old. This can give the impression to the contributor that warnings are accumulative over time. Also, that was 74.130.38.36's only contribution on the day. I would have used a test tag instead. While I can't deny the fact that the blatant tag may have made him stop at once, neither I can omit the fact that you may have scared a contributor from Wikipedia. Also, the fact that you called vandalism a relatively harmless edit, although you apologized, together with the fact I can't find enough reverts in the last two months, lead me think your lack of (recent?) experience at reverting may be noted during a future RFA.
 * Now, you have stated you would be more interested in WP:AN/I and XFDs if your RFA is successful, a reason that does not appear to be changed. You don't appear to be a reverter, and I bet you have tagged plenty of pages as speedy deletion (and since I don't find edits where you have added a speedy tag, I believe all those tags have been agreed by the administrator reviewing them).
 * You have uploaded several images. However, reviewing some of them since August, you don't use fair use rationales. I would suggest you to use them, as lack of fair use rationale can be considered a speedy deletion reason, and since you may be involved in deleting those images, you should set the example by using them. As a side note, Image:Princesymbol.png is being misused everywhere. Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace, yet it is being used in talk pages, Wikipedia namespace, even user space. Would you remove the image from those pages considering our fair use criteria, or leave it there?
 * 3 edits at redirects, 8 at categories, 3 at templates, and over 700 at articles for deletion (although only 20 in October). Analyzing the ones from October, in Articles for deletion/Don't Mess With Football and Articles for deletion/Police v City of Newark I must point that there is no need for the nominator to "vote": it is understood that, if you send it to AFD, you believe it should be deleted unless explicitly stated. This may give the impression you consider the deletion process a simple vote where the side with more people wins. In Articles for deletion/Tom Halden, a more powerful reason (copyright violation) was raised, yet you agreed that notability issues were more important. In Articles for deletion/Arjinderpal Sekhon, you quoted "reliable sources", yet you did not reply when asked which reliable sources. This tells me you don't do follow up discussions after you have given your opinion, which may be inappropriate (if clear evidence that contradicts your opinion is raised, I would hope you change it accordingly, although you did not do that in Articles for deletion/Mathias Bröckers when User:Blathnaid presented his research.
 * My personal opinion is that, while you have improved your summary usage, there are some questionable edits done in the last month that may be be misleading. Your lack of vandalism warning experience in the last times and the fact that you don't appear to change your opinion in AFDs regardless of new evidence presented after you have made your decision may be raised in your next request. This last point makes me worry, considering you would be a XFD oriented administrator. If you were to demonstrate that your opinions are not set in stone, and that you can change them if new evidence is found, I would think you would have a successful request in the future. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 14:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
 * Comment One of the "issues" in the previous Rfa was a low edit summary use...looking over past 1,000 contributions, this appears to no longer be an issue. Other items such as the now long past Rfc, which was basically a vindictive effort, are of little concern as the "issues" mentioned there are no longer applicable. I can see no reason at this time to not promote this editor to admin.--MONGO 06:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep up the good work! Cheers, -Will Beback 09:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Zleitzen above. Looking through your recent contributions, I see work on several topics, vandal fighting, and clean-up stuff. I think what you do organizing related articles is useful, as with Template:PacificaRadio, and the Peru portal. That takes some thought, and it is an area we need more people working on. Tom Harrison Talk 15:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: In particular I am pleased with my contributions to the Ollanta Humala article (which has since been listed as a good article), the Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada article, the Cory Booker article (which I've really worked hard to maintain updated), TeleSUR, Open Veins of Latin America, Pacifica Radio, and the Alan García article (though for this one I can only take partial credit as most of my work in that article is in the "The second García administration" section). I have a list of "articles created", "articles contributed to", etc... in my user page which lists more contributions.
 * On vandal fighting I always remove it when I see it. I occasionally patrol for new pages and put speedy tags on vandal pages. I've also been active on fighting vandalism on the Democratic Party (United States) article, which seems to be a huge target of vandals (at least once a day it gets vandalized).
 * I help maintain the Portal:Peru (adding monthly updates for news, pictures, selected articles, and selected bios) and the WikiProject Peru.--Jersey Devil 19:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * A: I was in a "conflict" with User:Striver for some time over his insistance on placing down, what I feel was information from unreliable sources (9/11 truth type blogs and such) in articles in a manner which I felt worked to promote his 9/11 truth POV. Along with that also the creation of articles which I felt were unencyclopedic. Anyway, since administrators have been more keen on the user this has died down and the entire incident is pretty much over. I really don't hold any grudges.--Jersey Devil 19:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. Can you say a little more about Requests for comment/Jersey Devil? --Guinnog 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A: The RFC was started by the aforementioned user and I think it is pretty clear what the feeling about the RFC was. In the outside view by Pegasus1138 which stated This RFC is a blatant example of not assuming good faith just because someone disagrees with having articles they have worked on AFDed. This is a pointless and hostile RFC. 23 Wikipedians signed on to it. Other statements in that RFC are similar.--Jersey Devil 20:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and I'm glad you don't hold any grudges. What would you say you learned from the affair, and how did it help your growth as a wikipedian? I am not disagreeing with your characterisation of the background to the dispute, I am just more interested in what you took away from it yourself. Thanks again. --Guinnog 11:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, on George McGovern you originally attempted to sanitize an article referencing dirty tricks and Richard Nixon, and claimed a POV that was factually wrong. You eventually, after a second revert, left the reference intact, and eventually added a useful link/image and additional reference, which I left a compliment about, as well as a suggestion you be certain to look at page layouts when adding images as well.  I've already made my other thoughts known in the prior discussion.  Best wishes.  Tvccs 11:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)