Wikipedia:Editor review/Strikerforce

Strikerforce
As a registered Wikipedian of just short of three years, I am very interested to see what other editors have to say about my work around the project, particularly in the past six weeks or so since I have really started editing on a regular basis. At some point in the future (I would say at least six months from now, but probably longer), I may consider making a run at adminship. Given the state of the RfA process at the moment, I am particularly interested in commentary from regular contributors at RfA in regard to the "usual arguments" that have been popping up. Overall, however, I am mainly looking for commentary that I can use to help make better contributions to the project. Strikerforce (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions have been in the form of new page patrol, as well as patrolling the new user log. In both arenas, my goal is to catch problems before they become a headache, while also assisting new users to the best of my ability. As a result, a large percentage of my edits are to user talk pages, rather than the article space. I can, however, contribute constructively to the article space. My highlights there include B96 Pepsi SummerBash, which was recently mentioned at DYK, and random work around radio station articles. I also have a strong interest in pages about media personalities (particularly given that I am one, myself, in real life) and sports articles. I am currently working on Paul Lusk, an article that I just created earlier this evening about a basketball player that I watched as a young child who is now the head coach at Missouri State University. While it is just a stub, as of this writing, it is my goal to bring it to GA status, at the very least, at some point in the future.
 * 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 can't say that I have been in an edit "dispute", necessarily, but I have been involved in a couple of rather headed AfD discussions, most notably WP:Articles for deletion/G-WAN (Web server). In that discussion, an editor became very agitated over the fact that I - along with several other editors - believed that the web server that he appeared to be a major contributor toward the programming of did not meet the guidelines for notability. He began attacking other editors using both his registered account and a dynamic IP address, even going so far as to accuse us all of being one person and having some sort of conspiracy against his program that was backed by the U.S. government. As my comments in the discussion show, I try to approach situations like these with an extremely level head and explain things in a calm manner. My weakness, in that regard, is that I can be a bit "wordy", but I try to error on the side of caution and hope that a detailed explanation can help a distressed editor "see the light", so to speak. With the exception of a couple of comments toward the end of the discussion (which also spawned an RFC and a sock puppet investigation) when the situation was clearly a lost cause and the frustration of dealing with someone who blatantly refused to take constructive criticism and suggestion to heart and improve their article, I feel that this discussion is a good example of how I would continue to approach things in the future.
 * I can't say that I have been in an edit "dispute", necessarily, but I have been involved in a couple of rather headed AfD discussions, most notably WP:Articles for deletion/G-WAN (Web server). In that discussion, an editor became very agitated over the fact that I - along with several other editors - believed that the web server that he appeared to be a major contributor toward the programming of did not meet the guidelines for notability. He began attacking other editors using both his registered account and a dynamic IP address, even going so far as to accuse us all of being one person and having some sort of conspiracy against his program that was backed by the U.S. government. As my comments in the discussion show, I try to approach situations like these with an extremely level head and explain things in a calm manner. My weakness, in that regard, is that I can be a bit "wordy", but I try to error on the side of caution and hope that a detailed explanation can help a distressed editor "see the light", so to speak. With the exception of a couple of comments toward the end of the discussion (which also spawned an RFC and a sock puppet investigation) when the situation was clearly a lost cause and the frustration of dealing with someone who blatantly refused to take constructive criticism and suggestion to heart and improve their article, I feel that this discussion is a good example of how I would continue to approach things in the future.

 Reviews 
 * Using the AfD you linked as a representative, you have a great way of handling disputes and explaining policy to editors - the "wordiness" doesn't bother me; I see that as you understand the policies you describe well, and can say a lot about them. Also very consistent edit summary inclusion, valuable contributing, good editing all around! Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)