Wikipedia:Editor review/Sarcasticidealist

Sarcasticidealist
Basically, I'd just like to hear how I'm doing - I've been here about six months now, and I'd like some feedback and advice on improving so I don't stagnate. I might like to be an admin at some point, but I think that's far enough off that using this page made more sense than the one to groom admin candidates. Sarcasticidealist 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

Review by Pedro Well, your work and dedication here seem good to me. I'm interested in your reports to WP:WQA. You seem to have a good grasp here, and evidences a lot of faith that things can be resolved through discussion. The sockpuppet incident was well handled, although with the nature of his edits I would have been more tempted with a vandalism warning after seeing them. A lot of your edits so far have been en-masse category additions or creations in the area you seem interested in - Candian Politics. This kind of routine work is also valued, and helps save us all from more listcruft at WP:AFD. I would encourage you to consider a bit more prose content addition in the field you enjoy, as I don't see a huge amount at present, although what you have done is good and well sourced. You seem to understand WP:N very well. I'd also urge you to widen your view on articles, as you yourself acknoweldge, perhaps by joining and participating in a relevant project if you haven't already? I don't see anything wrong with your unilateral creation approach though, and you don't seem to show any ownership issues. Longer term, why not get into a bit of Recent Changes patroling - not only can it help keep the place clean (dealing with vandalism and possible speedy deletion candidates) but also may open you to other articles in a completley different area that may interest you. In summary, I like what I see and there is no question your work in a relatively narrow and probably under resourced field is great. One further note : you reviewed User:Wikisteph888 below. This account has vandalised and been warned, and then blanked the warnings. You have assumed good faith which is great, but be careful not to assume good faith to the point of ignoring or not recognising disruptive accounts. Best Wishes. Pedro | Chat  09:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pedro. Most of what you say is very helpful, and I thank you for it.  I just wanted to add a note on the User:Wikisteph888 issue - I saw her vandalism warning, and that she erased it.  However, the warning was with regards to her single mainspace edit (blanking Sanday), which could easily have been an error.  As for the blanking, as I understand it you're allowed to blank warnings from your talk page, and that doing so is taken as confirmation that you've read and understood them.  Accordingly, I thought assuming good faith was still appropriate (though her level of good faith remains difficult to judge until she makes some substantive edits). Sarcasticidealist 13:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, one other thing - which "sockpuppet incident" are you referring to? Sarcasticidealist 13:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. You are correct that it is sometimes acceptable to remove warnings. I don't see anything wrong in your actions on that at all, indeed commendable for your AGF - it was more a general comment with that as a reference. Be nice, be very nice but don't be gullible as it where (though I'm sure you're not - please understand that's a generalisation of my approach to AGF). The sock puppet thing was User:Ultrabias and your solid handling prior to the revelation they where a sock. Excellent work. I hope this has helped, and if I can every be of any further assistance please shout at me ! Very Best. Pedro | Chat  15:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.


 * View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I guess there are probably three general categories of activities that I've been pleased with. First, I think I've done good word in creating and expanding the various articles on the Mayors of Edmonton.  Second, I'm proud of my expansion of the Edmonton City Council article, although I'm concerned that it isn't nearly as pretty as it should be (I'm also concerned that I might have misused footnotes there), and of the articles in Category:Elections in Edmonton (although they're also not very pretty and their notability has been questioned - see below).  Finally, I think I've done some good work at WP:WQA.
 * 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?
 * One of the things I'm dissatisfied about looking at my Wikipedian career is that I haven't been much of a collaborator - I've created a very high percentage of the articles I've worked on, and haven't really participated in bringing existing articles up to FA standard or anything like that. However, there are a couple of conflicts that I have been involved in, and I think I handled them both quite well.
 * One of the things I'm dissatisfied about looking at my Wikipedian career is that I haven't been much of a collaborator - I've created a very high percentage of the articles I've worked on, and haven't really participated in bringing existing articles up to FA standard or anything like that. However, there are a couple of conflicts that I have been involved in, and I think I handled them both quite well.


 * In the first instance, User:DESiegel expressed concern that my Edmonton election articles fell short of standard required by WP:N. While I obviously didn't agree, I had anticipated that that might be a concern, so we had a lengthy discussion about it (here and here) which ultimately resulted, at his suggestion, in an RFC (here).  I think that our interaction was a model of how disputes should be resolved; of course, as the more experienced user he deserves a lot of the credit for leading me through the process.


 * The second case went less well - I had some concerns with the behaviour of User:Ultrabias and, after he declined to discuss these concerns with me, I brought them to WP:WQA (here). Unfortunately, it later turned out that the user in question, a sockpuppet of a banned user, likely wasn't acting in good faith, which made resolution nearly impossible.  In any event, I think I handled that as well as I could have, although I'm certainly open to advice on what I could have done differently.