Wikipedia:Editor review/Ducknish

Ducknish

Ducknish (talk · contribs · count) I have been a part of Wikipedia for about a year. I have rollback and pending changes review rights. I would appreciate anyone's review, so that I can get some idea of how I can improve my contributions to the encyclopedia. Ducknish (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I have created several articles and have spent a lot of time attempting to expand articles and fix citations. My main focus, however, is vandal fighting, CSD patrolling, and participating in AFD discussions. I feel that I have a good track record of correctly applying the CSD criteria, as a sizable majority of the articles I have marked have been deleted. my CSD log.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I have never been involved in any disagreement I would consider serious enough to qualify as an editing dispute. I have had some friction with users in the past, but I attempt to remain civil, and I'm detached enough from my work on the Wiki that I wouldn't really say such tensions have caused any stress. I always attempt to remain objective about situations, and that can be seen in AFDs where I have been willing to compromise with other users after discussing issues with them.

3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?

   I am interested in a potential RFA at some indeterminate point in the future, as I would like to have the ability to have an even greater involvement in the deletion and mediation process. I have no specific area I would like to be reviewed, I would be happy with any feedback on any part of my edit history.

Reviews

Hi, I would like to start off by saying; I apologize for your review going unanswered for almost an entire year. I appreciate and respect your proactiveness to become a better Wikipedian, and although I’m newer to the community, I want to make sure your Editor review request is fulfilled. I will attempt to evaluate your edits and efforts to the best of my ability, and give you feedback, as a newer Wikipedian, from my perspective. Now that you are approximately in your second year as an editor, I’m sure you’ve grown, but I also wanted to evaluate your more current contributions. I’ll then compare some of those contributions to how you objectively described yourself a year ago. I believe the insight I provide you can be helpful, but also feel free to post on my User Talk page if you want to discuss ideas or comments regarding this post in further detail.

When taking a look at your more recent contributions, it appears that you are still actively making citation edits/ adding reflists, rolling back acts of vandalism, and tagging user’s pages when subpar articles are submitted for creation. The high quality of all these contributions are embodied in the recognition you’ve received on your user talk page! I know you’ve noted that you would only think about submitting a Request for Adminship if you reached an intermediate point in your experience. However, since you are approaching 11,000 total live edits and a large amount of those edits involve posting notices on user talk pages, or doing article cleanup work, all of these qualities make you a good candidate for adminship. I recommend taking the time to consider applying. If you’re interested, you can visit WP:RFA. I believe there would be a community of individuals who would support your request, due to the amount of recognition you have already received for your positive efforts and contributions.

There are a few suggestions I that could potentially enhance the posts you put on user talk pages when tagging them for deletion. I recommend molding the posts in a way where the user being tagged has a sense of the next steps he or she can take to improve. I already noticed you accomplishing this a little when putting an information box to the right of the main text. I enjoy how you inform users that the Article Creation Wizard exists and is a viable option if starting out. I also recognize that there is a certain flow that these specific posts should have. Drawing from my previous experience, when I was tagged for speedy deletion, another administrator of the WP:Teahouse had thankfully seen my talk page, and reached out to assist me. Perhaps if maybe this recommendation were also included in the deletion tag, the post would be more constructive. That way, users would have a sense of ‘what to do next’ and the steps they could take as they continue growing in the community.

Furthermore, I noticed that you are already actively using the Twinkle and Hubble tools to combat vandalism. I recommend continuing to use these tools in your practice, as well as checking out some other helpful tools here at Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools.

In conclusion, I’m sure you’ve grown rapidly as a contributor in the community over the past year, and I think the next viable steps would be to help share that knowledge with other, less informed users. You have the credentials to back you up and either and RfA, or constructively reaching out to users would be best suited for you. The consistent nature of your work positively influences your trustworthiness and dependability as an editor, and I wish you the best as you continue to add to Wikipedia! Thank you for your time. Mewhho18 (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)