Wikipedia:Editor review/Gaelen S.

GaelenS.[edit]

Gaelen S. (talk · contribs · count) I am just looking for some constructive criticism on how I personally can improve on Wikipedia. At some point in the future I would like to apply for administrator though I realize that now is not that time. Anything you can offer, as long as it is helpful, would be greatly appreciated! Thanks,Gaelen— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelen S. (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Sorry for the delay in getting a review done - we're trying to get through the backlog!

User conduct:

Edit summaries: ignoring the 66% of your edits that were automated ones (using Twinkle and Huggle), only 48% of your major edits have an edit summary (100% of your minor edits do, but most of these are the automated edits). See my advice below under "RfA"
Comments on talk pages: The vast majority of these (both on article talk pages and user talk pages) are automated edits. The rest seem to be mostly connected to your RfAs or enquiries into being an ArbCom Clerk. As such, I cannot comment on your interactions with other editors, as there is insufficient evidence on which to do this.
Attitude towards other users:

General: Not enough evidence
Your opposers at RfA: Granted that your messages were left at a time when you were angry, when I read some of the comments you made (especially in your closing comment for the 2nd RfA) I felt that they were not very civil. However, I have not seen problems in the last 2 months, so I'll AGF and assume that that was out of character. However, I must point out that should you go for another RfA, people will look at your previous 2 RfAs - and may take your comments into consideration. Other editors will probably say "look at their recent stuff", but different editors have different standards that they expect from admins.
Your suggestion about a 'probationary admin': I'll be honest, when I read this I thought that this looked a bit desperate. Although you had had your account for a couple of years, your first edit was on 26th Aug - and you wanted to be an admin. As an analogy, this would be like starting to work at a bank as a greeter, and expecting to be given the safe keys on your first day! I'll give more advice below. This kind of approach has been discussed before - and by very experienced editors and admins. So far, none of the proposals have received the support from the Wikipedia community to make it happen - and I don't forsee it happening anytime soon.

Editing:

Out of a total of 2308 edits (including the 26 deleted edits), almost 40% of your edits have been to article space. However, a great deal of these are automated ones with Huggle and Twinkle - anti-vandalism is very useful, but so is adding content to the encyclopedia!
Edits to user talk space make up almost 44% of edits (again, mainly automated). If these had been mainly "discussion" edits, rather than automated ones, I would have more evidence of how you interact with other users.
(for other edits, such as in Wikipedia: namespace, see below)

RfA:

I see that you made two RfA (one just 3 days after you left this ER request, the other a month after that. My main advice would be to read the comments on both of those RfAs, along with that left on your talk page.
I also see that you are doing Admin Coaching - the page was created on 30th September, just after your 2nd RfA, although you have not done anything on that for the last month. My advice would be to continue with this: Lankiveil will nominate you (with your say-so, of course) when they think that you are ready.
Advice on areas which may be useful to develop before your next RfA:

Edit summaries: use them! A lot of editors expect admins to use them in almost all edits. If you look at your preferences, under the editing tab, there is an option 'Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary - make sure that this is ticked, so if you forget to leave a summary, you'll be reminded!
RfA/RfB: leave considered comments on future (or the current) RfAs and RfBs. You have commented on 3 of them so far. This isn't particularly required by most editors - but it allows editors to see your explanation of your reasoning (and it means that they will recognise your name in your own RfA!). As I say, it's not essential, but it does no harm!
Trust: to be granted the admin tools, you need to be trusted by the community. There are no fixed criteria - every editor has an idea in their mind of what they are looking for in an admin, some even have it on one of their user pages - but first and foremost, they all want to see someone that has shown that they can be trusted. Your coach will help you with this.
Automated edits: although these are not in themselves a problem (vandalism fighting is a noble part of the Wikipedia workload), as seen in a recent RfA, some editors see it as a reason for not supporting an RfA.
Article work: although not the case for all editors, a lot of them think that an admin should know about creating/updating/tidying up articles - not the anti-vandalism side, but the actual content side. As I say, a lot of editors have no problem with a candidate with little article work, but most would expect to see something along those lines.
AN: From what I can see, all your comments here have been about your rollback rights. Most editors would expect to see some contributions here to discussions about cases other than yourself
ANI: I couldn't find any evidence that you have commented on cases here. Again, this is an area which admins would be expected to work in - but non-admins can comment.
Mediation: I was very interested to see your involvement at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-09-24/Soundboard_prank_call. I'm not sure how you got involved, but I notice that neither editor did anything else to the article after it had been redirected. Work in mediation is always useful - but only if the purpose is to help the editors involved, not as a way of getting involved with ArbCom.
xfD: The only involvement that I can see you have had with Articles etc for Deletion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence of indebtedness. As part of an admin's tools is the ability to delete articles, being able to show evidence of involvement in these discussions is essential. This shows that you can apply the policies, and explain your reasoning: an essential skill for an admin. Incidently, although I never saw that article, from what others said at the AfD, I'd be surprised if it was eligible for speeedy deletion. The CSD are very precise: not being notable isn't a reason for a Speedy: not making an assertion of notability is. In this case, going by the closing admin's comment, it appears that the article asserted notability, but there were no sources to back up this assertion.
CSD/Prod: The only CSD I can find for you is Karin Erdmann. I can find no PRODs. Again, this is an area in which an admin would expect to be knowledgeable, as they can delete articles. CSD in particular are tricky (This is the area in which I have the most difficulty: 49% of the SDs I've tag have been accepted, 49% have not - the remaining 2% (1 article) I removed my own CSD tag, as I found a source!) - and it is particularly important to show a thorough understanding of the CSD, as an admin can delete those immediately.

Summary:

Work more on articles (adding/creating sourced content, wikifying, etc)
Read the advice given in the failed RfAs and on your talk page.
Look at the areas I have suggested above that might help you
Continue Admin Coaching until your coach thinks you are ready - they will nominate you.

I will notify your coach of this review as well - they might want to discuss it with you, and give you more advice in addition to (or instead of!) mine.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
Though I may have contributed more to some pages than others, those are most likely not my best contributions. I have been trying to discover articles on which I know something about and add information I believe helpful or edit areas that I believe need some clarification. I have no particular edits of which I am very proud.
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?
I have been in one small editing dispute which I tried to resolve with some tact but do to my relative inexperience, I did not particularly understand its nature. I hope to deal with any future disputes by calmly stating my reasoning and suggesting a compromise that might work on both sides.