Wikipedia:Editor review/Thedjatclubrock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] thedjatclubrock

thedjatclubrock (talk · contribs) I want to know how I can Improve.I also want to know what other Wikipedia Users think of me based on my edits. I am open to any comment. Thinking of future adminship(tips welcome), if I ever have time to edit in the mainspace. Thanks,Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 14:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC). Updated: 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Well here goes my review based on your desire to seek adminship in the future:

Major areas-

  1. Wikipedia space: You adequately are familiar with Wikipedia space (such as using WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, participating in AfD/XfDs, etc.) However, you might want to increase your involvement in deletion debates if you are seeking adminship (the deletion process is vital to be familiar with if you are considering adminship). On the other hand I can tell you are familiar with the CSD process, which is a good thing.
  2. Article space: You are a sensational recent changes patroller and wikignomer! Article contributions might be a minor issue.
  3. Civility: From my interactions with you, I have determined you to be a very civil and level-headed editor. I can't seem to find any recent incivility issues in your contribution history which is great!

Minor areas-

  1. Edit summary usage: According to this you definitely need to increase your edit summary usage for major edits. Edit summaries help others easily identify any certain changes and helps you easily browse through your contribution history when you need to refer to something.
  2. Signature: Your signature completely abides by WP:SIG and is contained in a neat line.

Thus concludes my review!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • You do a fair bit of vandal-whacking, which is good, but if you want to be successful in RfA, and indeed if you want to be "useful" admin, some editing of actual articles would be a definite plus - just to gain experience in application of core content policies, like V, NPOV, etc., and to gain an understanding of what others have put into the work that you're now deleting/protecting. If you could get Half Hollow Hills Central School District to GA standard etc., that'd be a good indication of your abilities in the mainspace...rather than just tagging with {{unreferenced}}, actually do something about it! etc. etc.
  • Your AIV/UAA reports usually result in blocks, which is good as that's the whole point of them! Something I've noticed though is that you only seem to revert/report really obvious vandals (replaced page with p3n1s, etc.) - something that people in an RfA would look highly upon would be finding the sneaky, POV pushing vandals that can otherwise get away with it. By the way, are all the edits to the sandbox really needed?
  • So yeah, that's my RfA related review thingy. Hope it helps :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 01:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by delldot

Hey thedj! I can call you that for short, right? I'm too lazy to type the whole thing :) It's been a pleasure hanging out with you on the countervandalism channel. Anyway, you came to the right person, I give really detailed ER's. Here's some thoughts, conveniently in a bulleted list ;)

  • Interactions with other users - From your talk page, it looks like you follow up politely when someone comes to you with a problem. I also saw you helping new users. You could go even more out of your way to offer help, but you're certainly doing a good enough job as is. It seems like you make an effort to reach out to others and be friendly and playful with them. You don't shy away from admitting mistakes and apologizing. It looks like you actually take care to implement the changes people suggest (e.g. [1] after people suggested being more careful with UAA). And if you resent people at all for offering criticism, you sure hide it well! You've approached people later just to be friendly after they had come to you with kind of curt criticism. All of this shows me you're doing great.
  • Interactions with new users - I always advocate being really, really nice to newbs. Not that I saw you say anything in the least bit mean to a newb, but you gave short answers to some questions, or didn't follow up with a "you're welcome, any time!" If you could reach out to them even more than you reach out to other folks on the project, it would be great. So for example, maybe instead of using templates with new users who have even the smallest chance of good faith, you could leave an individualized message (disclaimers: Do I template new users? Constantly. I've actually been thinking about this for myself though, because I think lately I've gotten too mechanized with new users. Vandal patrol does that to you: it's just like, "Crap. Next. Crap. Next. Crap..."). Anyway, I ramble on. Like I said, I didn't see any problem from your contribs, just something to think on :)
  • Using automated tools - [2] Be careful that if you use an automated revert on something, that it's definitely vandalism (I don't know the history with this revert, they might have been a total troll, so your revert may have been perfectly correct). In general, I'd definitely err on the side of A'ing GF, since the the potential to alienate someone well-meaning is way worse than having to waiting a bit longer for a vandal or a troll to get blocked. (The revert you made to my talk page today was fine, since I thought it was pretty obvious that they were just being goofy. But it was great that you checked with me about it to make sure!) This, of course, goes for things like blocking as well: be cautious. Discuss if it's at all possible that it could do any good.
  • In a similar vein, this report got criticized because you didn't cite enough diffs or provide enough good evidence that these users were socks. Especially with something potentially hurtful or contentious like this, be cautious. You don't want to get a reputation for being trigger-happy.
I will work on that,Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C).
  • The speedy/nonsense thing in the comments below - It's good that you listened to the advice, but I disagree with Rodhullandemu that you should tag hoax articles as nonsense. I think there's a lot of misuse of the G1 criterion, by everyone, including admins. So you can probably get away with it, since for the most part, you're like 'this is a steaming pile of crap, it must go now!' And you're right. But I think CSD is pretty clear on the rule; it must be "unsalvageably incoherent", "with no meaningful content." And "hoaxes of any sort" are expressly excluded from G1. So I think you were right not to use the nonsense tag. However you shouldn't have tagged it to be speedied as a hoax; hoaxes aren't speediable (though some can be speedied as vandalism under G3, which is what I would have gone for here, since this article was patently false). But this is just me, I'm very into adhering strictly to the rules. As I said, a lot of stuff gets speedied as nonsense that's not completely incoherent. Obviously, this is kind of a minor point - the article obviously had to go one way or another.
  • Article content contribution - It's really hard to judge your article contributions because of all the antivandal work you've been doing - I'm probably missing them in with all those other contributions. It looks from your talk page archives like you had some trouble early on with your articles getting nominated for deletion, but it looks like most of them stayed around. I'm sure this is no longer a concern, as you're obviously quite familiar with policy, judging from how you cite it.
  • Thoughts on RFA - If I were you, I'd wait a couple months, but again, I'm very cautious (I waited till I'd been on the project for like a year and 4 months, and had over 10,000 edits. Which was probably way unnecessary). I've cautioned other people to wait in ER's before, and they've gone ahead, and passed just fine. I guess it depends how you feel about not passing the first time.
  • As you know, if you haven't made major content contributions to articles, this could be held against you. I noticed on your user page that you're in school, and that you are a future EMT (/me is an EMT too! We'll be twins!! :D). I conclude you're studying to be an EMT; you could be a big help with EMS-related articles, which are in a pretty sorry state. I'm thinking of things like equipment, that you'll find in your EMT textbook. Starting or fleshing out articles like FROPVD and Bag-valve mask could be really helpful, plus it will help you study, which you mention on your user and talk pages you need to do more of ;) Whatever type of articles you decide to work on, I do recommend getting the feel for adding good amounts of content, it broadens your experience a lot.
I will do that, I'm also thinking of starting pages on DJ stuff (speakers, CD players, etc.) and live sound/stage lighting. Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C)
  • People will also look askance at your small number of talk: edits, which might suggest to them that you don't communicate & collaborate well on articles. To me it suggests that you don't make many major changes to articles and so don't need to use talk pages much. I don't think you should do anything about this: it would be dumb to bow to editcountitis. Of course, when you do make a major or potentially controversial change to a page, use the talk page. But you know that already ;)
  • Other - [3] Did you get consensus to do this before going ahead? Seems like maybe a good idea to discuss first.
Yes, I asked an admin on CVN, w/ a revert, they said it would be OK. Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C)
  • Also, just curious: Why didn't you make a second ER and transclude it to WP:ER instead of extending this one?
  • Why not set it in your preferences to prompt you if you go to save without an edit summary?
Already done, since the middle of this month. Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C)
  • Overall contribution - I think it's great that you're using your programming knowledge to help the 'pedia. You're very friendly and a pleasure to interact with, and your completely clean record of zero conflicts is highly laudable. You're a terrific asset to the project! delldot talk 09:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your review, really detailed was an understatement :). Delldot Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 13:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

If you haven't already, please add this review to Wikipedia:Editor review/Archives to save work for those who maintain this page.

[edit] Comments

Comment I have a minor concern. You put this tag - {{db|Not A real place/nonsense.See Oh crap as motto.}} on Ohcrapistan. This is a manual tag, albeit a speedy, whereas {{db-nonsense}} is more concise. When tags already exist, I think they should be used and in the case of patent nonsense, an admin can easily see this and does not require an explanation. Good luck with your RfA! --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was "Nonsense" because it was written like an article, and wasn't random words/phrases but it was obviously fake. Sorry, will do that nex time, Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

.

  • I can't be sure, but I have the feeling that you made your recent WP:UAA report of User:Daaaaaaaaang just by clicking through TWINKLE, without being familiar with the username policy first. I am supposing you would have done something different if you had been aware of the possibility of leaving username warnings, or known that TWINKLE's automatic justifications are not themselves reasons to block. Be careful with TWINKLE -- it can be a useful shortcut for doing policy-related things, but it's not a substitute for policy itself. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have read the policy, and I believed that User:Daaaaaaaaang was a violation. It consisted of only 3 different letters (Random) and was lengthy(Who could remember all those A's?). Next time, I will use {{usernameconcern}} before a report to UAA. Thanks for the comment, Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC).
You don't have to remember any A's, you just need to click on a link, and there is no minimum on the number of distinct letters in a username. Look at blocks as a tool for improving Wikipedia by removing the people who actively detract from it, not as a way to punish people for minor irritations. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
At that time, that could of been a throw-away account, also that user had only three edits that were all malicious tests. See Contribs. Thanks for the comment :), Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 04:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC).


Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I am proud of all my contributions and think that any contribution that makes wikipedia a better encyclopedia is crucial. I think reverting vandalism is my greatest strength and I am very pleased with all my RC patrols especially Sock reports.
  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?
Other than the occasional vandal replacing my userpage(suck my d*ck you ho*ny Bas$#@d), No, I haven't had any Serious conflicts. In the past, and recently I've made some mistakes during Fast RC patrol, and have responded to the users in a calm-headed way. As of 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC) I have no outstanding conflicts with any editor. When the wiki causes me stress, I never take it out on other editors.