Wikipedia:Editor review/tjstrf

User:Tjstrf
As seems to be the case with the majority of editors approaching this page, I am essentially seeking an RfA Primary. I wish to pass RfA in one fell swoop if at all, and wonder where I stand in that regard. As such, I seek more criticism than praise here, though praise would be fine as well if you seriously think I deserve it. Specifically, I desire to know what weaknesses I have as an editor that I am not already aware of. --tjstrf 06:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's Tool (Firefox only).
 * Edit counts all listed on the talk page, so unless you want an up-to-the-minute tally, go there. Also note that I've placed questions above reviews, as it seemed more sensible that way. --tjstrf 08:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * My most significant contributions have mostly been to those articles within the Bleach (manga) category. Building accurate, non-speculative articles on any area of popular culture is always difficult, but we've managed to accomplish it. Outside of article-space, I am an active contributor to the village pump and policy talk pages, and contribute to AfD.
 * 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?
 * I rarely enter into conflicts with other users in good standing, mostly because my personal policies dictate I avoid subjects in which I am emotionally involved. However, I can name three instances from memory in which a significant dispute has taken place.
 * The first was Articles for deletion/Christ psychosis, an article which consisted of original research, vanity, and extremist anti-christian point of view. While I was never called on it due to nature of the situation, I found myself degrading into rhetoric and borderline incivility. As a result of this situation, I have concluded that users should not edit controversial articles on which they strong feelings.
 * The second was a 51 kilobyte naming dispute on Talk:Roronoa Zoro. Though some users's emotions ran high, I was able to stay calm and not let my emotions get the better of me. (I think I was sarcastic one time though.)
 * The third and most recent (about a week ago) was on external links in Riviera: The Promised Land. In this case, I can say that I handled myself well so far as civility and discussion went, however in the early stages of the disagreement I mistook an IP editor who didn't know to use talk pages for a simple vandal, and reverted him several more times than I probably should have, though it was over several days.
 * With the exception of those 3 situations, I believe I have not been party to any significant disputes.

 Reviews 


 * Well, we have been working together on Bleach-related articles for a long time and I recognize you as an excellent editor and fanboi/girl fighter. At the moment, I can only find 3 things to criticize you about.
 * Check the articles you are redirecting to. Actually I just found this one instance randomly, but here you attempted to redirect to a page that doesn't exist.
 * While this may be difficult if your knowledge is mostly covered by Wikipedia, try to edit more non-fiction articles. For example, I frequently edit Israel-related articles. If you are fluent in another language, you can translate articles from that language's Wikiepdia. I think this is important for other users' perception of you (but may be wrong).
 * Sometimes you revert a bunch of edits by a single user seemingly without checking whether all edits are indeed harmful. While most of the times you are correct, there are some cases such as this where you reverted many non-harmful edits just to kill one or two. Manual reverting may sometimes be worse than automatic but in some cases it shows more effort on your part and increases understanding between users (combined with edit summaries which you already use well), among other things.
 * Lastly, try to use IM more to interact with your fellow editors :P -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello there, tjstrf. Here are some comments.
 * Just over 4300 edits, around 470 user talk edits and 730 article talk edits, those are pretty good numbers for me. They mean you interact with people very often, both personally, with user talk pages, and in groups through article talk pages. Your edit summary usage is perfect, but I guess you already know that :-)
 * 118 edits in AFD, 43 in TFDs and 85 CFDs, not bad numbers at all, although the amount of AFD participation could be better (considering there are at least 50 articles sent to AFD per day). Checking this opinion it looks like you are not afraid of giving your own opinion, although that may bring some controversy as seen here. This participation suggesting to send the article to DRV implies you know about the deletion stage, so even with a low amount of AFD participation, I believe you will be trusted if you ask to take care of deletion backlogs.
 * I notice you created the Category:Bleach images. When creating a category that will hold fair use images, you need to tag it with __NOGALLERY__, because thumbnails in categories are considered a breach to our Fair use criteria.
 * Regarding this edit, there has been a discussion in the Japan WikiProject (between several other places like the Album and Song WikiProjects, the anime, etc), and it was agreed that articles should follow the manual of style, not the original typography. In other words, your summary is misleading. Even if BLEACH is a j-pop group, the article in Wikipedia would be named, in example,Bleach (j-pop band) (as Bleach (band) already exists), and not BLEACH.
 * Regarding this edit summary, I find it slightly offensive, mainly considering it was first edit.
 * Interesting that you need to apologize for opposing a RFA. Note that I don't think that is bad, I just think it is interesting, because I don't happen to see that. Maybe people should do that more often.
 * You also like writing fictional articles? Just like me :-) I suggest you to review the fiction guidelines, to enhance articles about Bleach, especially those about the characters.
 * Remember to substitute warning templates when leaving them in user talk pages. Here is one you forgot to ;-)
 * Now, going back to possible administrator duties, as I said you have a vast experience with the deletion process. I am guessing you have a good amount of deleted edits due speedy tagging. But the amount of vandal fighting is rather low. I like the fact you warned two old users due their behaviour in the Danny Phantom AFD. I like when people is "pro active" and not "re active" when something serious like a scalating edit war/personal attack issues. But, overall, your amount of reverts of vandalism is somewhat low. Apparently you don't do vandal patrolling. Although you have a good number of AIV reports, I am somewhat dubious about the amount of warnings you have left. I mean, I have left 20 user warnings this last week (15-22), and I am neither a recent changes patroller nor wanting to become administrator as of now. Were I really interested in adminship, I think I would spend some time patrolling. Of course, it depends in what you are willing to do when becoming administrator, which you have not specified.
 * I am assuming your average is doing 500 edits per month, spending a good amount in the Wikipedia namespace. I see you have been working pretty hard in these last two months. If you are chosen as administrator, will your edit average stay at 1000 per month, or will drop back to the 500? For me, there are three group of editors: less than 1000, between 1000 and 10000, and over 10000, where people in the first group should not be chosen as administrators due lack of experience. I am interested in knowing how much of your time will be spent in administrator-like duties, and how much in what you are doing right now.
 * As I said, my opinion is that, if you base your adminship request in XFD and backlogs, it should be a successful one. I am a little worried about vandalism, as you aren't much focused in that area. In any case, remember that adminship is nothing special, and if you fail achieving it in the first attempt, you will have other opportunities. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 00:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

--"I rarely enter into conflicts with other users in good standing." I.E., he has had no problem entering into conflicts with new users or anonymous users. Censoring such users, forcing messages on their talk pages to provoke more disputes, etc. This person is not qualified to be an admin of Wikipedia. Look at his edit history for examples. --Purposely left unsigned by a sock of User:DougHolton.
 * You're right, I have no qualms whatsoever about reverting trolls and vandals such as yourself and your IP socks, User:66.230.200.227 aka User:68.52.79.104 aka User:68.52.207.200 aka User:69.138.37.99, etc. etc. etc. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Admin blows referee whistle
Not a good move there, tjstrf. Link to diffs and block logs if it's necessary to prove your point, but stay away from the t-word. As soon as an editor gets sysopped the baiting quotient can raise by an order of magnitude. Suddenly you become an Authority Figure, which draws inherent wrath from people who hate authority figures in general. A certain type of user delights in taunting admins into losing their cool until somebody gets desysopped or (at the very least) general respect for administrators erodes. Step back for a moment and suppose this were the Village Pump. Now pretend you visit the thread as Joe Wikipedian with an edit count of 350: the exchange looks ugly on both sides. That, in fact, amounts to a succesful example of you-know-whatting-that-starts-with-a-t. Isn't it tricky how skilled those rubbery green bridge-dwellers can be?  Durova  04:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)