Wikipedia:Editor review/Chabuk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Chabuk

Chabuk (talk · contribs) There are a couple reasons I'd like a review. First off, I would at some point in the future like to contribute to Wikipedia as an admin, but more immediately, the Vaughancruft [1] debate seems to have finaly settled down to the point that I've been back to normal editing for a while now, and would like some feedback on how I'm doing, if I'm on the right track, etc. Chabuk 20:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • I think so far you're on the right track. It'll be nice once the election is over, then the whole VaughanWatch debacle will definitely be done. It seems you're doing a good job on RC patrol, but RC patrolling doesn't require the admin tools. If you want to be an admin someday, you should read WP:ARL and think about what kind of admin tasks you'd be interested in, and start getting involved with them. Blocking and unblocking? Start reading WP:AN and its related pages on a regular basis, become familiar with the policies, and offer opinions when others ask for them. Deletion? Participate in a wide variety of AfD debates, not to mention other XfD, Prod, and CSD. You might consider getting VandalProof or AWB if there are general categories of things you want to work on cleaning up. Mangojuicetalk 18:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello there, Chabuk. Here is my review, hopefully you will find it useful.
    • Mathbot reports a pretty high summary usage, 100% in major and 88% in minor. This is a way of helping other users when writing articles, and is appreciated.
    • As I don't use tools for editcountitis, I will do it manually, so some numbers will be slightly off. As of this review, you have 3220 edits, with nearly 800 in user talk pages, and nearly 350 edits in article talk pages. My personal belief is that contributors should spend time in talk pages as much as in articles as this is a community effort. In your particular case, it is easy to notice you contribute as much in community discussions (both individual discussions with determined users as with several others in article talk pages).
    • I noticed you have "advertised" this editor review with at least 12 other users. Since this is an informal procedure to get feedback, I don't see anything wrong with it for now. However, I hope you understand having a similar action in your future nomination will not be seen kindly.
    • I am somewhat worried about your prod participation. In example, COBS Bread was prodded because it fails the corporation guidelines for notability. You deprodded it with a disagree. deprodd comment, however you did not specify why you disagree with that. The {{prod}} tag clearly states If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced. However, you have not given source to demonstrate this company fulfills our notability guidelines, nor you have used the talk page in order to give your reasons for deprodding. As you have done with articles where someone deprod'ed it and you sent it to AFD, I would have kind of expected you sending the article to AFD yourself if you are not able to provide the references or working the prod tag asked for. Also, you have prod'ed Oil Thigh with the comment NN. While it is clear what you meant, I think you should make statements that are understandable for everyone. Imagine a casual user arriving to the page and seeing NN as reason for deleting the article. Were he able to contribute, giving citations or demonstrating the subject is notable, he may not do it because of not understanding what NN means. Also, you seem to think AFDs are votations, as seen here, here, here, etc. In multiple instances you mention "vote." Two things about this: an AFD is not a vote, it is a search for consensus (I have been around for some time, and I have seen articles with just few delete opinions and plenty of keep ones getting deleted, and on the contrary, few keep and many delete opinions still around), and second, when you nominate an article, it is believed you nominate it because you think it should be deleted, so there is no need for adding Delete when nominating an article. When someone objects the deletion but still nominate the article (in example, an orphaned AFD, or when someone questions the article notability and, not being able to get consensus in the talk page, you nominate the article for deletion in order to get a broader set of opinions), they would state No opinion or alike to indicate they don't have an opinion, and that the motive was raised by others and not by themselves.
    • I would suggest reviewing your contributions as Pm shef, replacing them with your current user and talk pages, so that it is less confusing for others. Although you don't need to, it is a possibility you can. Of course, you are free to do it or not :-) -- ReyBrujo 21:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Regarding your speedy usage, I would like to see a "friendlier" approach. In example, you tagged the Uzi and Ari article 20 minutes after it was created by Wonfrost (talk · contribs), an obvious new user. When you speedy tag articles created by them, you need to inform the user with {{nn-warn}} and probably with {{nn-notice}} after it was deleted. We should educate new users about our notability guidelines, and these notices help answering the most common questions. Yes, I notice the user contacted you and you replied, but it also happened with Perini Navi. Also, tagging as speedy a user page is something that may surface in your future RFA.
    • I look forward your contributions as Esperanzian. As you say, it is a hard work to be nice with people when they offend you, but that is the only way of making Wikipedia a better place.
    • Good to see you spend time with articles other than politic ones. After learning about references, I think you should begin learning about m:Cite/Cite.php, inline citations that make reading much easier, as you can find the reference inside the text. If you expand these articles a little more, you may make them become good articles. Remember, administrators are also editors, and they are expected to know about copyediting.
    • A little comment about adminship. I don't see right now a strong reason for you to become administrator and, as I said, there may be a conflict of interest as you contribute to topics where people may think you don't have a neutral point of view. Also, your 3RR block and the fact you have made a libel summary with your previous account less than 4 months ago will scare people from supporting you in some time. Personally, I think people should have no blocks in the previous 6 months before a request for adminship, but other's opinion may be different.
    If possible, I would suggest you to continue contributing to Jason (high priest), Morris Winchevsky and The Family Markowitz, trying to make them good articles. That should give you a rest from the VaughanWatch sock family, will improve your editing capabilities and will help Wikipedia with information that not many know but the few ones that do are willing to contribute. Adminship is not out of question for everyone, however I would suggest you to wait at least until next year, as you are still too young a user to handle admin responsabilities. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 21:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I'm most proud of the articles I've created and edite on Jewish topics, especially as part of the Wikiproject: Jewish History such as Jason (high priest) as well as Jewish literature articles such as Morris Winchevsky and The Family Markowitz. I'm pleased with these specifically because unlike my politics edits, they're a part of society which does not receive the same kind of glamour, yet is still very important to culture and to the project. In addition, my work on McGill University related articles has been positive.
  2. 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?
    Heh. That's an understatement. Anyone familiar with the Vaughancruft debacle will already know the answer to that (I used to be pmshef). In short, it was a massive (52 or more) sockpuppet farm, all focused on making my life miserable and inserting massive PoV into Vaughan, Ontario related articles. In the end we went through like 5 Checkusers, 1 RFC/U and even had to create a new template to label the User:VaughanWatch socks. Since then however, I've joined Esperanza, and have made a concerted effort to be nice to users, even if it's not always reciprocated. I've also learned a valuable lesson regarding the importance of references. Including proper references in articles make life a lot more difficult for PoV pushers. Chabuk 21:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)