Wikipedia:Editor review/Riana dzasta 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:riana_dzasta

riana_dzasta (talk · contribs) Hello, world! There have been some suggestions from various users, including administrators like David Cannon, Merope and YoungAmerican, and old hands like Will that I should run for adminship. I am not considering running until January due to lack of time. However, I would appreciate any and all suggestions, comments and criticism to see whether I am on the right track to being a good administrator. I won't see this review as an instruction manual to prime myself for an RfA; however, I would like to gauge whether the community trusts me enough to do the right thing by the encyclopedia. Thanks for reading, and all comments are much appreciated! I am going on a break immediately after this, so I will not be able to get back to you as quickly as I would like to, but I will definitely do so eventually. riana_dzasta 11:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops - here's a link to my first editor review. riana_dzasta 11:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • I don't often have the time to review anymore (I'll fix that soon, I swear), but this was too good a chance to pass up. :) Personally, I think you'd make an outstanding admin, and I'd be very happy to see you receive the tools. To strengthen your standing in a future RfA, though, you might benefit from more involvement in both the Talk and Wikipedia Talk namespaces, although your AfD participation really is very strong. On top of that, even your vandal-squishing will draw criticism for not creating content. I guess a good goal would be to try and raise an article you like to good article status, although it can be a pretty laborious thing to do. Good luck with both your exams, and future RfA! Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 11:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick answer! And no, I didn't really think aiming for a GA any time soon would really be feasible for you, but it's something to think about (.. and not do, as the case may be. :) ). I'll say it again, though, I think you're in a very strong position to become an admin, so you'd probably be best served by preempting any criticism (like "a lack of encyclopedia-building") that might arise. I can't think of anything else at the moment, though... Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 12:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you think of anything else, lemme know, OK? riana_dzasta 13:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • OK. Time to experiment with a new style of review:-
  • Statistics
  • Activity: Well-spread, with no major declines etc. Shows dedication to the project
  • Mainspace: A nice number (about half your total). No specific article focus (21 edits on Geography of Uttar Pradesh being the highest) is a slight concern, but you dealt with this in your answer to Q1. No complaints here.
  • Wikipedia: A little on the low side. Even though I wouldn't, people will oppose for this. A couple of suggestions to remedy it: WP:DELPRO#Non-admins closing discussions (you're in the "editors in good standing" bracket, for sure); respond to comments at WP:ANI in a kind, thoughtful and civil way; maybe take a look at patrolling a noticeboard (like WP:PAIN) to remove bad requests per the instructions; or maybe even WP:RFF. Whatever takes your fancy :)
  • User talk: Very good. I like this number, as it shows the ability to interact with users.
(I consider those the "big three" namespaces)
  • Behaviour
  • Civility: Always exemplorary. Never seen you flustered, or being arrogant. No problems here.
  • Courtesy and kindness: Being helpful to new users is a brilliant attribute to have; you have it, from what I've seen.
  • Participation in dispute resolution: Although not mandatory, this is good to have. Even if it isn't official DR (ie. just commenting at ANI, etc.), this is a great thing to add to your Wiki CV.
  • Time period: About the same as me - been here since May, nearly six months under the belt. Would be enough to satisfy most RfA-ers.
  • Final thoughts
  • Certainly a candidate for adminship in the near future, however another month or two won't hurt. Maybe try and focus on doing some admin-related tasks (see my Wikipedia-space comment above for ideas), and you should be a shoe-in for +sysop. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much for all the suggestions. I know a month or two more is definitely necessary for me to gain the amount of experience I hope to see in other RfA candidates. As for the WP-space suggestions - thanks, some of those aren't areas I've checked out before. I'll have a look into them. I'm also attempting to maintain focus on a few articles right now, but they won't see any significant activity until I have more source materials. Thanks again, Daniel! riana_dzasta 05:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, seems like Daveydweeb and Daniel already provided some great feedback. So I'll just focus on your admin-oriented performance (although I cannot refrain from mentioning how truly kind and friendly user you are). :-) You've been participating regularly in XfD, and I like the arguments you provide to justify your positions. You sometimes invoke policies, denoting that either you are already accustomed to them or rapidly expanding your knowledge about them. Perhaps you could bring a few articles to AfD during the patrol every now and then, that would clearly show that you can detect when something should not be on Wikipedia. As for countervandalism, you're doing a good job. You have good discernment on reverting edits, and also warn vandals adequately. Maybe you could try installing VandalProof2 if you would like to increase and enhance your vandal fight. Frankly, I think that you are fit for an RfA (as I've told you before). :-) Happy editing! Best regards.--Húsönd 00:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey Husond! Congratulations (once again!) for making it through your RfA (although with nominations that good, you couldn't have failed :P) The most recent articles I brought to AfD were these two, although admittedly I don't do it very often. As for Vandalproof... well, my laptop tends to struggle with AVT, which is what I use most of the time, so Vandalproof may have to wait :) Thanks for taking the time out to review me, though! riana_dzasta 03:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit more substantially in articlespace. That will be the main knock against you at the time of an RfA. Small articles (maybe about what you're studying?) that would make DYK's are nice places to start -- Samir धर्म 04:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Understood - thanks, Samir. You made the same comment on my last editor review... I seem to be a hard learner... riana_dzasta 04:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - You're not an admin yet? Need I say anythign else on this review? Thanks & keep up the great work... Spawn Man 01:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC) :)

  • <cliché> Yes, I really did think you were an admin. </cliché> (But it's the truth! :-) ) Anyway, most of the big things have already been said, so I'll just throw in my two cents on a small issue: I think it might be best if you tried to avoid abbreviations in your edit summaries, for example [1], [2], and [3]. While experienced editors may have no trouble with these, many people looking at the edit histories of pages are new users, and having lots of abbreviations in the edit summaries can be confusing and shed little light on what the edit actually did. It takes but a little time to type out "revert vandalism." Yet this is a small point, and you are truly an excellent contributor whose RfA I should be happy to support. All the best, Dar-Ape 02:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think Ria...just kidding, I really think you will become a great administrator as you show a rare virtue of kindness and that is something I personally like to see in an admin. And of course you are an awesome editor. But watch out for those edit summaries as Dar Ape suggested some will use this to oppose you in a future RFA. Cheers and keep it up. — Seadog 05:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I'm not an outstanding writer - hence, I'm not an outstanding article builder. I have begun one article, Katherine Knight, which I'm reasonably proud of - mainly because I noticed the wonderful TruthbringerToronto gave it the once-over soon after it went online, and only had one spelling mistake to correct! :) If you go through my mainspace contribs and ignore vandalism reversions, you will notice mainly minor edits - stub-sorting, disambiguating links, wikilinking. Every one in a while, I get tired of RCP and hit Indian, a disambiguation page with a great many articles linked to it - I go through and attempt to clean up the articles along the way. I feel justified in saying I've made a bit of a difference to some articles by copyediting and rewriting [4], [5], [6]. However - no featured articles forthcoming. The reason for this - if I can defend myself while complimenting others - is that my area of semi-expertise, chemistry in particular and science in general, is covered so well by other editors that anything I think of writing about has already been done. I am, however, in the process of gathering sources and more information to add to Sarod and Sitar, as Indian music articles are largely underwritten, undersourced and overly technical. I hope to have them up to B-Class on the WikiProject India quality scale by the end of January.
  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?
    Apart from the usual antagonism that any vandalfighter is bound to face at some point, I can think of one issue that particularly stressed me out. I had been "mentoring" People Powered (talk · contribs) for some weeks, who seemed to be a perfectly valid contributor, albeit with a much higher interest in RfAs and adminship than is usually seen in a new user. One day I got a message from him, stating that he had been blocked by freakofnurture. I asked freakofnurture to explain what was going on, and eventually found out from Choess that People Powered had been suspected for a while of being a sockpuppet of Karmafist (talk · contribs). A lot of back and forth conversation between myself, People Powered and Choess ensued, which ended with People Powered leaving this message on my talk-page. I replied with this, but he seemingly gave up.
    I have to be honest here: the situation bothered me then, and it still bothers me. I was never given enough proof that People Powered was indeed a sockpuppet (although now I have little doubt that if not a sockpuppet, he was certainly a disruptive user). I asked freakofnurture whether a CheckUser would be appropriate - in fact, I asked him several questions (even one by e-mail), none of which received any replies. Of course, now I realise that he was probably attempting to keep more people out of the situation than necessary, but at the time I was a little bothered that my reasonable requests were being ignored. I understand now where he was coming from, though.
    Another, perhaps more minor event was this RfC, fueled by a comment (a careless one, in hindsight) I made on this AfD. Nunh-huh was accused of misuse of admin rollback and incivility, and Chacor decided to file an RfC against him. The RfC is still current, but further input from myself or other parties have not been requested, so I don't know how to rate my behaviour in the matter.
    As for how I intend to deal with disputes and conflicts in the future - well, I've already stated that I think there should be a gentler slope between talking on one's talkpage to filing an RfC. The fact that there's been an "official" record of one's misdeeds is likely to make one even more antagonistic. I will attempt to resolve disputes by talking to a user on their talk page as much as possible. Only if this turns out to be completely futile, will I consider taking the next step (after consultation with any others involved).
    Boy, that was a long answer - honestly, though, if you look through my interactions with other users, they are overwhelmingly positive. I enjoy being a part of this community far too much to actively seek out disputes :)
  3. Optional question from User:Daveydweeb: What sysop tools would you find the most useful, and what activities would you use them for?
    Thanks for the question, David! A quick glance at my contributions shows that I don't tend to participate in a lot of behind-the-scenes, policy-making type stuff. However, I do read a lot, and I think I am almost as familiar with process as many administrators are. My main interests lie in recent changes patrolling and new page patrolling - I feel fairly comfortable in these areas (RCP more than NPP, to be honest). I realise that a lot of this is made very easy for non-admin users via semi-automated tools like Godmode and anything Lupin puts his hands on. However, AIV and CSD backlogs annoy me... If I am given sysop privs, I anticipate spending time reverting vandalism, deleting spurious content, closing XfDs, blocking problematic users (not at the very beginning, obviously - I would have a lot of reading to do before that!), protecting/semi-protecting pages, etc.
    Also, while I know that admin status doesn't technically give me any political weight, I would also try my best to mediate in disputes and incivility situations. Administrators are usually in a good position to smooth out these issues. I intend to be as active as possible at AN/I, PAIN, and possibly AN3.
  4. Optional question from Moreschi: Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
    Hi, Moreschi, sorry I didn't notice this question before. This seems to be the sort of RfA question that garners a few 'opposes' in every RfA it's asked in, so I'll think about it a bit :)
    It's a finicky question, but this is what I think. Repeated personal attacks and incivility, and I would warn them a few times, before discussing with other administrators about further consequences. Everyone has a lousy day once in a while, but if it were particularly virulent, I might consider a short (say, 24-48 hour) cool-down period.
    Editing disputes like 3RR and incivility on talkpages should be viewed a little more seriously. I will try to reason it out with the user(s) involved, and if that doesn't work, I might consider a short block once again if the problem is getting out of hand. Obviously if they have stopped, I would leave them a warning, but no block (preventative, not punitive, and all that).
    Inserting vandalism and dubious content into articles would be dealt with by talking to the user in question - I'm willing to swallow the 'my account was compromised' line, as long as the user can up their security level, and the vandalism stops. If not, I would discuss with other administrators - hopefully it isn't a good user going off the deep end, but if so, I might consider a longer block (a few days up to a week) to give them a chance to reconsider their behaviour.
    Inappropriate/suspected (mis)use of sockpuppets would be dealt with by talking to other administrators, perhaps requesting a CheckUser, and if the results are conclusive, issuing a block. The block-length would probably be proportional to the depth of the abuse.
    I don't think, however, that I would consider indef-blocking an established user - at least, not until I was very comfortable with the whole idea. I wouldn't think too hard about indef-blocking a pure troll or a vandal, obviously. riana_dzasta 04:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    The only thing to say here is that I'd be very careful with "cooling-off blocks" when it comes to incivility and PAs on behalf of established users. It doesn't seem to work and is now held to be a bad idea, as I think the Giano RFAR showed. Incidentally, they are also heavily frowned on at RFA - not that that matters at ER, of course. Moreschi 16:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    True - don't worry, I'd think pretty long and hard before blocking anyone, anyway. riana_dzasta 01:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Optional Question from Moreschi: Under what circumstances should a page be protected? Are there other methods to avoid protection?
    Page protection... hmmm. In the case of extreme vandalism or repeated insertion of unencyclopedic material, pages should be at least semi-protected (eg Steve Irwin, Saddam Hussein's trial, etc). Full protection is a bit trickier. In the case of a content dispute or revert war, I would considering fully protecting a page for maybe a day or two, which should give myself and others some time to mediate between the users involved and try to reach a compromise. (Again, the points I made for/against blocking will still apply here).
    As for protecting deleted pages, I would protect any page which had been recreated more than 3 times in a week, more than 5 times in a month or more than 15 times in 6 months.
  6. Optional question from Moreschi: How familiar are you with image policy - what images can, or cannot, be uploaded to Wikipedia? Do you have an account at WikiCommons for uploading images yourself to the WikiMedia Foundation projects? What, for example, would be the copyright status of the image on this page [7]?
    OK, that would be a {{pd-old}} image, right? Seeing as it seems to have been created in the 1700s, so the copyright would likely have expired. At least in the US. I'm not awfully familiar with image policy, I must admit. I have a commons account, but I rarely use it. I have upload 2 fair use images to Wikipedia (here and here), but I avoid it as much as possible! I'm not as familiar with images as I probably should be, but I will steer clear of them if an RfA is successful, until I have done a significant amount of reading.
    {{pd-art}}, in fact. Two-dimensional reproductions works of art that are public domain are themselves public domain, at least in the US and in quite a few other places. Moreschi 16:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    Eeek, need to learn Italian. :) OK, thanks for the tip. riana_dzasta 01:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)