Wikipedia:Editor review/OhanaUnited

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] OhanaUnited

OhanaUnited (talk · contribs) I want some feedbacks from other editors regarding my contributions in Wikipedia. My mainspace contribution may be a little on the low side, that's because I contribute indirectly through others such as leading Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and Environmental record task force. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

[edit] Review by LaraLove

Like me, your focus is very narrow. This will kill your RfA. You'll also catch hell for half of your edits being on talk pages. Personally, having worked with you, I think you're a great editor. You make constructive edits that improve the encyclopedia and the project, you're respectful and courteous. A well-rounded editor. But I can tell you now, for a successful RfA, you'll need a couple thousand more edits, some to mainspace, some vandal fighting (RC and NP patrolling), XfD, AN/I, etc. Hang out at WP:RfA for a while. That's the best way to get an idea of how your RfA will go. And it will help prepare you for the potentially brutal review to come. Also, you answers to the RfA questions will have to be more detailed that they are here. Particularly for the conflicts question. Lara♥Love 16:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Aside from GA backlog elimination drive and environmental record task force, I created Portal:Environment which is now a featured portal candidate. I also started the assessment department for WikiProject Environment through the help of an admin. Sometimes I go to Chinese Wikipedia for articles about Hong Kong and translate the information into English Wikipedia.
  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?
    Of course, any active editors will encounter these once in a while. This one, comes into my mind very quickly. An editor was having some rough time and decided to let his steam out through undermining the assessment system. I think that the next time an editor does similar action, it would be best not to respond instead of going up front head-to-head. There are a few more conflicts, but I can't remember them. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No go

Your handling of the Red Auerbach de-listing is at best unilateral and at worst downright ludicrous. You: (a) assume the article is patently bad to warrant (b) three odd days as sufficient notice (and reaction time to) of your concerns, (c) and do not see fit to go beyond posting an notice on the talkpage rather than communicating with the principal editors. You can toe the fine line in the de-listing process (de-listing is easier than listing) by being legalistic about it and say you're not obliged to do any of the above, but think about it, Wikipedia is about collaboration and communication. Have you succeeded in either? Chensiyuan 15:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for taking time to do my editor review aside from GA community members. Actually, it's not me that first spots the problem.[1] I understand your frustration because this is an article that you contribute significantly in.
a) assume the article is patently bad to warrant
A: May you explain to me what are reference #6 and #10 inRed Auerbach? It doesn't lead you to any source, rather, it looks more like a statement. Reference format are inconsistent. Image:RedMemshamrock.png does not have a FUR. It does have a summary but a FUR is required.
b) three odd days as sufficient notice (and reaction time to) of your concerns
A: To be correct, four days. Other than those 2 references mentioned above (which I have no clue why they are there), the rest are easy job. How long does it take to add a fair use rationale? How about summarizing and shorten lead section? More than a day?
c) do not see fit to go beyond posting an notice on the talkpage rather than communicating with the principal editors
A: What?! How can I not communicate with others when half of my edits belong to talkpages?Principal editors usually watch their pages that they contribute a lot in. Nevertheless I attempted to communicate through talkpage, as opposed to not communicating at

all. I have done reasonable efforts to make sure that others have received my notice.

One final word, when the forementioned issues are fixed, drop me a note in my talkpage and I'll quickly list the article onto GA again.OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to vent some steam now. Principal editors usually watch their pages that they contribute a lot in.. WOW. I have written 1 FA and 16 (!!) GAs. Should I really put attention on EVERY of my 17 articles? Also, you neither went through the Wikipedia:Good article review. You completely ignored it, that is the better word. You also neither contacted WP:NBA, the main WikiProject, or contacted me, User:Onomatopoeia, as the main author, and still you say I have done reasonable efforts to make sure that others have received my notice.. So... where are the edits on WP:NBA? Where are the edits on User:Onomatopoeia? Where are the edits on User:Chensiyuan? Where are the edits on WP:GA/R? —Onomatopoeia 12:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
FYI, on WP:GA (talk page), I addressed the matter and User:T Rex (GA review bigwig) had this to say: "No he (OhanaUnited) was completely wrong in trying to remove it without consensus as well as according to you, trying to hide the fact that he did that. It should probably be restored to GA and taken to WP:GA/R immediately. T Rex | talk 12:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)" —Onomatopoeia 12:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) First of all, this is not the appropriate place for this discussion. It should be moved to OhanaUnited's talk page(See last sentence). Second of all, T Rex is not a GA/R bigwig. I've been there for months and I've never seen him participate there. As far as GAC goes, he reviews articles, but is by no means a bigwig. In fact, he's had minimal contributions to Wikipedia for almost a year until this month. OhanaUnited, on the other hand, is the coordinator of the last month-long GAC backlog elimination drive. I did the majority of the quality reviews (which are basically re-reviews of all articles reviewed during the drive) and I tagged that article as not done. I told Ohana that it was my recommendation that any such articles should be delisted immediately while all articles tagged as questionable be taken to WP:GA/R. With that said, considering my position in the GA project—one of the more thorough reviewers at GAC, the creator of two task forces (WP:UCGA & WP:GAPQ), and a regular voice at GA/R)— it is not unreasonable to assume he trusted my judgment and went along with my recommendation. So, to amend the second sentence of my comments here, this discussion should be moved to my talk page. Lara♥Love 05:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He simply made a 99.9% unilateral move. Note that not a single of my concerns was addressed. —Onomatopoeia 07:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
99.9%? How many of his concerns were addressed before he delisted the article? Lara♥Love 15:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I already made a comment on Onomatopoeia's page per his request. I think this has been blown out of proportion though. Fundamentally, OU is a good guy. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communication

Whilst i understand that there were several problematic reviews in the GA drive that you were part of, i don't think it fair or in the spirit of a Wiki to unilaterally delist an article. In the case of Victoria Cross (Canada), the contentious nature of its promotion has nothing to do with the editors of the article. As far as i am able to discern, the article was delisted, by you, on a technicality. I think that if you communicated more with the main contributors of these articles, then the current problems could have been avoided. Even though there may have been several articles up for review, i think bypassing the correct processes and procedures was slightly foolish. The WP:GA/R is there for a reason.

This has a bearing on any request for adminship and for your editing in general. Taking unilateral actions and ignoring the correct protocols would be a worrying trait for an admin, or anyone else to have. Whilst, in all honesty, delisting a GA is not a big deal, (i will just renominate or list at review), i think that the lack of communication with the main contributors of pages is troublesome and causes unneccessary grievance. Woodym555 23:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

See my comments in the section above. It wasn't unilateral. He delisted the articles on my recommendation as the quality reviewer. This articles was, in my opinion, the biggest fumble in process (so to speak) in the whole drive. A mess. One reviewer puts it on hold, another reviewer ignores the issues, undermines the original reviewer and lists the article 43 minutes later. Yet another reviewer comes along and notes issues that needs to be addressed. Days later, reviewer two explains why he took it over to reviewer three, completely oblivious, it appears, to reviewer one. Ohana most certainly can't be singled out over this one. Lara♥Love 05:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Response at User talk:LaraLove#Victoria Cross (Canada) as the reply has no bearing on OhanUnited's editing skills. Woodym555 10:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)