Wikipedia:Editor review/Rockstone35

Rockstone35
Hello, I'm curious as to what I should continue to do to help boost my edit count so that I can become an admin one day. My admin request which anyone can see: here, failed due to lack of edits. I was well aware that I was most likely not going to make it, but wanted to anyway to see if I should try again after I gain experience. Please let me know if there is anything I can do in the future to make it more likely to become an admin. Thank you. Rockstone (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Hi Rockstone35! Sorry for the delay on getting a review done for you - we are working on the backlog! Anyway, on to the review...


 * User conduct:
 * Only 71% of your major edits have edit summaries (although most of your minor ones have them, but most of these appear to be automated Huggle edits). It is a good idea to try to make sure that you have edit summaries used for almost all edits. If you look at my preferences, under the editing tab there is an option to be reminded if you forget to include a summary!
 * In your communications on article talk pages, I found on occasion that you seemed very agitated! I understand that you have your opinions about what should and shouldn't appear in articles, but at the end of the day, a consensus is what is required. The impression that I get from looking at your contributions is that you have a few days where you are very into an article, and commenting on it a lot - and then you go away and ignore its talk page (for example, I don't see any comments from you on the Human rights in the United States talk page since June - despite the large number of edits in January-March).
 * Your attititude towards others appears to be quite good - I don't see much evidence of not assuming good faith, and you try to give advice where it is required. Most of your user talk page edits are Huggle and Twinkle ones though, so I do not think I really have enough examples of your edits on talk pages to be definitive in this.


 * Editing:
 * A third of all your edits are automated (using Twinkle or Huggle). This is neither good nor bad - vandalism patrol is an important task on Wikipedia. 40% of your contributions are to articles (but if you exclude the automated ones, this is a lot lower). 30% of your edits are on user talk pages - but again, a lot of those are automated. Even though not all of them have been labelled as such, most of the edits on pages appear to be minor ones.
 * I notice that a lot of your groups of edits to a single article are adding/changing extra words - I would recommend using Preview more often, as a lot of these you would see in a preview before you click on "save". Also, quite often you have to add your signature to comments after you have saved the comment - please try to remember to do it as a matter of habit!


 * RfA:
 * Deletions: An essential job performed by admins is that of deleting articles/pages which should not be present in the encyclopedia. Looking at your archives, I see a lot of declined CSDs (and even a PROD which I removed as the grounds you gave for the PROD were not accurate). Looking at AfDs, MfDs and FfDs, I see that you have commented on a few of them (4 AfD, 1 FfD and 1 MfD) - more involvement on xfDs would be good, as this would show your understanding of policies and your ability to express your opinion - both things that people voting at an RfA look for.
 * Edits: I can't see any substantial editing on an article - just a lot of small changes. This is an essential task on Wikipedia, but a lot of editors expect admins to have experience with contributing to articles, as admins need to be able to make well-thought decisions based on what they have experienced, as well as on policies and guidelines. If I missed anything that is major (other than your work on Directory structure), please feel free to mention it!
 * Other RfAs: I see that you have !voted on two of these. It is a good idea, in my opinion, to comment on RfAs, for two reasons: firstly, it gives you a chance to explain your reasoning. Although not required, it is helpful to give an indication of why you think a candidate would or would not be a good admin. Secondly, other editors see your name - and see how you compose yourself, and how you explain yourself. If you go for RfA yourself, you'll be a recognised name - and people will have seen you explaining yourself, which is an essential skill for an admin.
 * AN/ANI: I notice that you have a few contributions to discussions at ANI, which is good - however, there were two comments I saw that you made that if you were going for RfA would have me feeling a bit uneasy: IPs really can't be trusted. (although I note that you later said What I mean by "IPs can't be trusted" is that IPs can't be trusted to remove Speedy Deletion Tags. Users with Usernames however, should have the right to delete the speedy Deletion tags if they intend to fix the problem, but only if they are not the original Author. (Not that I'm I'm saying this should be policy!); the other comment that would make me uneasy was your comment yesterday: I say it's a little too soon for a ban; we should probably block him for a while though. - a ban would prevent the editor from editing a specific article or a specific topic, whereas a block would prevent them from editing anything.
 * Summary:
 * In my personal opinion, you have a while to go before you would be ready to go for adminship.
 * Preview your edit before saving - a lot of the minor edits would be avoided as you will see that it doesn't look correct!
 * Use more edit summaries on non-automated edits

I hope that this review helps. Feel free to come back for another review in a few months' time. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 12:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Vandalism fighting and reasonably debating with people. My favorite contribution is Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church/Page_rename_proposal because I successfully debated my point. 1
 * 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?
 * Quoted from my admin request: "Yes, a few. My first real conflict was when I deleted something that called Communist States oppressive. (Since that was NPOV, yes, it is oppressive, but you don't have to be blunt about it, its criticisms should speak for it) That was way back in 2007, and my methods were ill advised at the time, but I have improved. Also, Human Rights in the United States has been a large topic for me because I thought the scope of the article did not include Abu Garib. It appears that the main thing I fought for, which is that the pictures which serve no purpose be deleted, did occur a few months after I disengaged from the article. I am glad I did, and if I am admin, I won't mediate things I have vested interest in (being a US citizen and all). Later problems have been related mostly to my incorrect Speedy Deletion tags, which is why I plan to stay out of article deletion until I am well versed in that."
 * Quoted from my admin request: "Yes, a few. My first real conflict was when I deleted something that called Communist States oppressive. (Since that was NPOV, yes, it is oppressive, but you don't have to be blunt about it, its criticisms should speak for it) That was way back in 2007, and my methods were ill advised at the time, but I have improved. Also, Human Rights in the United States has been a large topic for me because I thought the scope of the article did not include Abu Garib. It appears that the main thing I fought for, which is that the pictures which serve no purpose be deleted, did occur a few months after I disengaged from the article. I am glad I did, and if I am admin, I won't mediate things I have vested interest in (being a US citizen and all). Later problems have been related mostly to my incorrect Speedy Deletion tags, which is why I plan to stay out of article deletion until I am well versed in that."

Thank you very much.