Wikipedia:Editor review/The Thing That Should Not Be

The Thing That Should Not Be
Hi there. I haven't filed an ER in months, so I thought I'd start one for the new year to receive some input as to how I am doing as an editor. One of the reasons that I am filing this is the rather concerning decrease in input that I've been receiving for my efforts over the past few months. The T hi ng H a p p y New Year! 07:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 Questions

Optional Questions from Doc Quintana
 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I am primarily a vandal-fighter, and lately I've been actively watching 4chan's "random" board for possible attacks on articles. But, I have been attempting to venture more into discussion-type edits, mostly at WP:ANI and WT:RFA. I am pleased about my vandal-fighting contributions, mainly because I enjoy reverting the vandal's futile efforts to get noticed...
 * 1) Have you been in any disputes 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?
 * ClueBot causes me stress... it keeps beating me to reverts... ;) Eh, but on a serious note, the only real "drama" that I've encountered are the annoyed vandals that I revert. Frankly it's my belief that editing should not cause you stress, as if editing is chronically stressful, you may tend to release that stress where it's really not needed... Oddly I have been getting very little complaints over the past 2 months, vandalistic or legitimate... and although I have been less active, it's still rather concerning to me.
 * ClueBot causes me stress... it keeps beating me to reverts... ;) Eh, but on a serious note, the only real "drama" that I've encountered are the annoyed vandals that I revert. Frankly it's my belief that editing should not cause you stress, as if editing is chronically stressful, you may tend to release that stress where it's really not needed... Oddly I have been getting very little complaints over the past 2 months, vandalistic or legitimate... and although I have been less active, it's still rather concerning to me.
 * 1) Why did you come to Wikipedia, and what do you get out of it? Doc Quintana (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * Great work. This kid super- human seriously needs a mop. Tim1357 (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Oh, btw, I'm 18, and turn 19 in a little over a month. Th e T hi ng  Ed it or Rev iew 16:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you done any substantial content work since your last RFA? –blurpeace (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, TTTSNB! As per your request, I have looked into your recent speedy deletion nominations:
 * Sexy hormone. I would advise you to not use G1 for this type of article (consisting only of haha), since it more neatly fits criterion A3 (no content), or db-nocontext
 * . Tagged A7 by you, which is correct, but G10 + blanking is preferable if the bio is unsourced and negative. she moved on to binge drinking and a nasty addiction to molesting her boyfriend, etc. The attack page category is more closely monitored than CAT:SD, and we want to give sterner warnings to attack page creators than good-faith beginning editors.
 * President George Walker Bush silence during 9-11 incident This is a well-documented event, and is described fairly accurately in the article. Keep in mind that G1 specifically excludes poor writing. In my mind, the only speedy criterion that could possibly apply is A10, as the article duplicates information found in Emma E. Booker Elementary School and The Pet Goat. However, even this is a bit dubious, as the incident may very well warrant an own article, because of the coverage it received. Cleanup + sourcing, PROD, or redirect would be acceptable alternatives.
 * Apart from these taggings, I counted thirteen speedy taggings that I didn't have an issue with, and a good PROD for an article that did not meet any of the speedy criteria. That concludes my review of your January 2010 deleted contributions. If you are interested, and if time permits, I can look further back in your history. Keep in mind, though, that this is all according to my personal CSD standard, which not everyone agrees with. Thus, you may want to seek out a second opinion from another experienced CSD admin. Let me know if you have any questions! Regards, decltype (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Before you read this, I should probably make it clear that I'm not exactly experienced at this sort of thing, but I thought I may as well add a few points. I looked at your last RFA; most of the opposes seem to be about lack of article writing, overreliance on huggle, very restricted scope of edits, lack of collaboration with other users and a lack of maturity.  Looking at your edits, I'm struggling to find any that aren't with huggle, because you've made so many of them!  You've only made two stubs according to the article counter (although I don't know what that does about changes of username), and I can't see any evidence of substantial content creation.  I think that even if you just picked a C or B class article and worked for a couple of weeks, expanded it, put lots of refs in and improved it substantially, to get it to a GA, it would really help if you did another RFA, as it would at least show some effort in that area.  I understand that you are more involved in vandalism reversion, and while there's no problem with that per se, you do seem to me to be one of those editors who just sits in the background all of the time.  You mentioned your contributions with RFA and ANI; can you give a rough idea of how much you've been involved with that, some examples etc.  Maybe some involvement in AFD might be appropriate as well.  Your edit counter states that you've made about 4000 edits to WP space, although I imagine most are on AIV.  You also mentioned a "concerning decrease in input"; again, can you expand on that?  What precisely do you want out of this process?
 * Overall, I think that you are clearly a very dedicated and willing editor, who generally has good judgement when it comes to the things you're experienced with, as shown by Decltype's response. I just think that it would be beneficial for you and would get you more 'involved' in the project if you broadened your horizons and got more involved in discussions and article writing, rather than relying on huggle.  But it depends what you want to do.  Are you happy with what you do now?  Do you still want to be an admin? Jhbuk (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For RfA, I've been voting more often, and I started a discussion which, I believe, may have saved an RfA from totally failing. Also, I have been involved in discussions at ANI involving User:Wiki Greek Basketball, where I attempted for as long as possible to assume good faith after realizing that the edits he made immediately after his block weren't all that bad. Unfortunately, in the weeks days following, despite the advice of me and several others, he failed to "get the point", and has been subsequently blocked again. T h e T hi ng  Vandalize me 06:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I think that last sentence should have said "Unfortunatelely, in the days following" rather than "weeks"... --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Th e T hi ng  Vandalize me 14:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I know The Thing from IRC, and I don't usually comment one way or the other on people I know from IRC, but I'll make an exception here because I try to make it a point to support the exceptionally dedicated patrollers. I mostly deal with WP:G10 and WP:G11, and the G10 and G11 work for December and January is very good. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)