Wikipedia:Editor review/Salvio giuliano

Salvio giuliano

Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · count) I've been here a little over six months and this is my first editor review. Basically, I'd like to see what people think about my contributions and the way I behave towars others.
I want to be extremely honest, I'd also like to receive feedback on whether or not I might turn out to be an acceptable admin candidate. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
My main contribution has been fighting vandalism; if you wish to see an article I created, then I guess this is the one; it's really quite mediocre, but there it is. I contributed to the translation of this article: List of people executed by the Holy See.
Have you been in any disputes 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?
Yes, I've been in a content dispute, right off the bat; it was with Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs) on Murder of Meredith Kercher. She thought that some people, including me, were trying to cast Amanda Knox in as bad a light as possible, calling us the "anti-Knox group" and identifying herself as part of the "pro-Knox group". We discussed for a long time on the talk page; however, this affair brought forth many threads on various noticeboards:
Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive83#user:Zlykinskyja. Repeated violations of civility in edit summaries and talk pages .28conserning Murder of Meredith Kercher. — a WP:WQA thread I didn't start, but I took part in;
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Murder of Merdith Kercher — a WP:NPOVN thread I started;
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive129#User:Zlykinskyja reported by User:Salvio giuliano .28Result: Warned.29 — a WP:AN3 thread I started;
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive129#User:Zlykinskyja reported by User:Salvio giuliano .28again.2C yes.29 .28Result: Warned.29 — another WP:AN3 thread I started;
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/Murder of Meredith Kercher — an unsuccessful attempt at mediation;
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#user:Zlykinskyja.27s conduct at AFD page — yet another WP:ANI thread I took part in;
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#user:Zlykinskyja.27s conduct at AFD page — still another WP:ANI thread I took part in; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive612#User:Zlykinskyja.27s actions on Murder of Meredith Kercher — the last WP:ANI thread I started and took part it.

Actually, this entire affair did not cause me stress, it causea me a bit of frustration, because there came a point when I thought that we had moved beyond a normal content dispute, that could be solved using WP:DR, and started thinking that the user had become disruptive in her attempt at clearing Knox's name. This wasn't because I didn't concur with her, but because she was adamant in not trying to hammer out a compromise, an agreement, but started considering the article as a battlefield, instead. (Clearly, that's only my point of view; I know she thinks we were being unreasonable and disruptive.)

If such a thing were to happen again, I think I'd behave much in the same way: first, I'd try to talk things through on the talk page, then try mediation (or another dispute resolution method) and then, if I thought the user was being disruptive, I'd report them to WP:ANI, I'd just try to do it sooner and not waste so many months after it.

Reviews

I've only known you for a few weeks, but I consider you to be one of the friendliest Wikipedia editors I've ever met. You've helped me with several editing goofs and I've noticed you do the same with other people. I like how you keep a friendly attitude towards other editors and you always assume good faith and try to sort things out. Wikipedia could use more editors like you. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Sphilbrick

You noted you are interested on feedback as a potential sysop. I'll spare you the obvious joke that this is the first strike against you (oops, too late). Keeping in mind that I am not a sysop:

You are contributing to WP:RFA with contributions to 19 requests. I think participating there is an excellent way to learn what the community expects in a sysop. While we did not always reach the same conclusion, I found no instances where I thought your reasoning was questionable. You show the ability to revise your opinion when learning new facts - [NF], that's commendable.
Edit summary at 100% for recent major edits—excellent
I looked at your raw edit count; approaching 10k, it should satisfy all but the most stringent of the RfA !voters, however:

Your article space % of 41 is on the low side - some will want it higher as a percentage, others might be fine with the percentage the absolute number of under 4k article edits is on the low side for recent successful candidates (in fairness, I started to do a survey, it was more work than I can do in a reasonable time, so I'm basing my comment on anecdotal observatons of a few recent candidacies).
Your monthly totals are impressive—the flip side is you only have four months of experience with over 100 edits per month. Some (including me) look for somewhat more time. There was a time when three months was enough—I think those days are gone,th ere are too many policies to understand.
Wikipedia space edits under 700 is on the low side for recent successful candidates.
Deleted edit count looks good, but not being a sysop, I cannot review them to ensure that they are valid CSD type edits.

Your talk page shows a lot of clueful, polite interaction with others - kudos
I had a specific question about one of the articles you've contributed to significantly—I posted separately at your talk page.
I reviewed (only cursory) one of your major articles: Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. It looks like a fine addition to WP. I'd love to see evidence of a second pair of expert eyes on it ( I see others are editing it, but usually gnomishly, and the references are largely not online) but this is the responsibility of WP, not you personally.
!Voters at RfA like to see evidence of contributions to places like AIV, AN and ANI - you are contributing significantly.
!Voters at RfA like to see evidence of contributions to XfD - I don't see all that many edits in those places.
My view is you are headed in the right direction. You might succeed with a nomination now, but you would be safer spending a couple more months doing mostly what you are doing now, with maybe a bit more participation at XfD.--SPhilbrick T 01:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short Review by Doc Quintana

I keep on seeing you everywhere, and that's a good sign that you're active and doing a good job it seems. Everything else I think has been said. Keep up the good work. Doc Quintana (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]