Wikipedia:Editor review/Reaper Eternal (2)

Reaper Eternal (2)
I have been working on patrolling new pages and countering vandalism on Wikipedia for around eight months now. I would be interested in a review of my work, and thoughts on how I handled the situation described in answer #2. I am interested in eventually being able to help block vandals and delete the new pages I find that clearly meet CSD criteria ("my best friend" A7s, G1s, G2s, G3s, G5s, G6s, G7s, G8s, G10s, G11s, G12s, U1s, U2s, R2s, and R3s). I would not be interested in deleting A1s or A3s, as I regularly see users add content after the page is tagged, thus averting deletion. So...fire away! (And say what you think of me, even if it is only "You are an ass!"&mdash;I have thick skin, and won't get angry&mdash;however, telling me what makes me an ass would be much appreciated!) Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I do have a CSD tagging log (current one here, and archives here (1), here (2), here (3), & here (4)) and a PROD log (only one here).
 * Would an admin please review my deleted contributions? :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions to Wikipedia are my three GAs, Worlebury Camp, Hurricane Danielle (2010), and Cirrus cloud. I am particularly proud of the cirrus article, which I expanded 5x for DYK in the same time I spent building it for GA status. I also like Worlebury Camp, which is my first article and first GA, and I am glad to have had 's help getting it to GA status. I am confident that without his help I could never have gotten any of my articles to GA status. I have eight DYKs, although I have to admit to creating a copyright violation (I closely paraphrased a source on Trawscoed fort) that appeared on the Main Page. A month or two later, I realized what I had done and substantially pruned and cleaned up the content.
 * 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.
 * As I have been on Wikipedia doing NPP for around eight months now, it has been impossible for me to avoid conflict. I try to respond politely to angry users who are requesting why their page was deleted, and direct them to ways they can contribute constructively (rather than writing about their friends/whatever). Recently, however, I was told by that I should be welcoming the vandals I was warning via Huggle or Igloo. I replied that the  already assumes good faith on the part of the recipient, and that the edit in question really warranted a level-2 warning for intentional disruption. He then implied that I was being too BITEy. Eventually,  replied, stating that the edits I was reverting were blatant vandalism and should not be welcomed.
 * As I have been on Wikipedia doing NPP for around eight months now, it has been impossible for me to avoid conflict. I try to respond politely to angry users who are requesting why their page was deleted, and direct them to ways they can contribute constructively (rather than writing about their friends/whatever). Recently, however, I was told by that I should be welcoming the vandals I was warning via Huggle or Igloo. I replied that the  already assumes good faith on the part of the recipient, and that the edit in question really warranted a level-2 warning for intentional disruption. He then implied that I was being too BITEy. Eventually,  replied, stating that the edits I was reverting were blatant vandalism and should not be welcomed.

 Reviews 
 * Review by Alpha Quadrant:


 * Initial thoughts The first thing I noticed when I looked at you contributions is that you are a vandal fighter. You also have majorly contributed to several articles, most notably Worlebury Camp, Hurricane Danielle (2010), and Cirrus cloud.


 * Antivandalism This appears to be your primary line of work, I haven't gone over all 13,000 or so reverts, but from a random sampling, you are very consistent with reverting and you are very good at maintaining civility.


 * New Page Patrol For such a high number of articles tagged, your CSD log is one of the most consistent I have ever seen. Excellent work here.


 * Namespaces Most of your edits are in the Article and User talk namespaces, clearly demonstrating that your devotion to vandalism fighting. You do however have a good number of edits in the Wikipedia namespace.


 * Content building Excellent work here as well, three featured articles, 33 articles created, and 26 redirects. I do notice that quite a few of the articles are stubs (example 14 Sagittarii), but you still do good work here.


 * Policy knowledge You have a clear understanding of the antivandalism/new page patroll policies such as WP:VAND, WP:CSD and WP:PROD. Through your content creations I see that you understand the style guidelines and WP:IRS.


 * Overall You're doing a very good job, I had a bit of trouble coming up with finding something you could improve on. Even your AfD work is accurate. The only thing I might suggest is getting more involved in talk page discussions. That will demonstrate that you can work with other editors. Collaborating on a GA is great, but you might consider getting involved a bit more often. You would make a very good admin candidate. I would suggest waiting until at least October though, as I have seen that there are some users that will oppose simply due to less than one year of editing. Keep up the good work. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant    talk    05:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! (I don't have three featured articles though&mdash;they are good articles&mdash;but cirrus cloud is at FAC.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted pages review
I checked your deleted contributions and I wanted to point out some things I noticed. By no means was I able to do an extensive review, so I mostly picked them at random (approx. 50 taggings). That said, your deletion taggings are mostly spot-on, so those examples are exceptions, not rules: Regards  So Why  20:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Effort Administrator: You tagged this article as A7 and G12. I think A7 was incorrect since it's about a web application, not a web page or web content. As for G12, please remember that just sounding like a copyvio is insufficient. To be blatant copyvio, you have to specify where it came from and a quick Google search reveals the source to be
 * The Living Fields: Tagged as A7, although it claimed that the band will release an album on Candlelight Records, a notable label, so I think that was incorrect. That some admin with no real grasp on the deletion policy deleted it, does not make it better.
 * Hmm...I thought I had replaced the speedy with a PROD after seeing the mention of a future album release. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alexander Robinson (Canadian football): Only content was "Alexander Robinson 97", tagged as A3. Is actually a case of WP:A1
 * Editing Portal:Bihar/Selected biography/15: You tagged this redirect to Portal: namespace as WP:R2. Sure, that was a redirect to be deleted but R2 explicitly excludes redirects to Portal: space. If someone mistakenly creates something at the wrong place, remember that R3 and G6 are there to clean it up.
 * Thanks! I'll especially try to get the correct source of the copyvio next time! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)