Wikipedia:Editor review/The Haunted Angel

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:The Haunted Angel[edit]

The Haunted Angel (talk · contribs) Hello! I am requesting an editor reveiw after one of my friends, American Brit, suggested me applying for adminship. I mentioned how I thought it was to early for me to apply for adminship any more then my first self nomination, and that I still had more work to do other then my constant RC patrol and anti-vandalism. EVula then suggested this place, and how I could at least see how I'm doing, so here I am. ≈ The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 22:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

  • Hi, Haunted Angel. You're a solid user, and I can clearly see why you could be asked for adminship. Your contribs are very good. However, I would really want to see more Wikipedia space edits. Participate in XfD's and RFAs, and you'll do better. I like to emphasize both points because they give users a better understanding of policy. Not that you aren't familiar with policy, it's just that you have not participated in any of these Wikipedian functions, so I am concerned about this part. Otherwise, keep up the good work and the vandal slaying. bibliomaniac15 05:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by delldot: Bless your heart, you've been waiting 6 weeks for a detailed review. Here goes:

  • Very nice anti-vandal work! Looks like you also appropriately tag speediable articles and appropriately warn the users (which many forget to do) [1][2]. Also very nice!
  • I thought this was a little rude. There's no reason to be unkind to users even if they are vandals (See Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals). Name calling isn't appropriate either, even if you're targeting a vandal. Others behaving badly is not an excuse for us to do so.
  • I think you handled this very well. You explained that you may have made a mistake and appologized if you had. You engaged in discussion with a new user and offered suggestions to help prevent it from happening again. Good job! Same with this one: you admit you might have made an error and appologize. Very nice.
  • This is not quite correct. While removing warnings is discouraged, it is not prohibeted. The proposal about prohibiting it failed to gain consensus. However, in my opinion you are right to replace them when someone removes them under most circumstances.
  • I had some concerns about this post: First, it was marked as minor when it was not (a small thing, probably just an error, since that button is right above the "save page" button and easy to accidentally hit). Second, I thought it was unnecessarily rude, e.g. "plain and simple so it isn't hard for you to grasp" (note that I did not look into the issue itself, and the anon's post was highly inappropriate, but again, I don't feel that others' behavior provides an excuse for bad behavior on our part).
  • Edit summary usage could improve. Edit summaries help others when they see your edits in their watchlist, when they're trying to find a specific post in the page history, or when they're trying to give you an editor review ;) I'd encourage more usage in general and also more informative explanations of what your edits were. If you want, you can set it in your preferences to prompt you when you go to save without one. Also, it's important to be polite in edit summaries, since they're here for good in most cases.[3][4]
  • I looked at your talk page and some recent contribs and it looks like you're being trolled by this Brit guy. I think you may be giving him/her too much attention, thereby "feeding the troll" and rewarding him/her for the highly inappropriate behavior. Here's a suggestion, but maybe it's totally nuts and you should check with other users to see what they think before doing it: Create a template in your user space that says something like, "You are a new user who has displayed characteristics or behavior similar to someone who has repeatedly created sock puppets and used them to harass me. Therefore, I'm going to request that a checkuser confirm or negate my suspicion, and I'm not going to interact with you until you are shown not to be a sockpuppet. Please direct other inquiries to other users, and accept my heartfelt appologies if you are not actually this person." Then just use the template like a broken record. That will be way less fun and rewarding for the person doing it, and s/he'll maybe go away sooner. Again, though, I don't know if others would approve this tactic and you may want to check with a trusted user before carrying it out.
  • Pretty large number of talk space edits, which may suggest that you discuss changes before carrying them out, which is good.
  • I had a look at a number of your mainspace edits and they were all very good. A lot of maintenance of Mortal Kombat and Cradle of Filth related pages.
  • My main concern is about the civility issues. You should push yourself to always be polite even when other users are acting inappropriately or trying to provoke you. Other than that, keep up the kickass anti-vandal work, newpages patrol, and article contributions! delldot | talk 15:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I tend to hang around the Mortal Kombat articles more then any others, and so some of my biggest contributions are there. Some particularly large edits I have done can be seen here, here, and a total re-organization of the Cradle of Filth talk page so that relevant discussions can be found at the relevant archives. Apart from this, other edits I am proud of are generally looking after many items on my Watchlist, and spending literally hours at a time on RC patrol. I have recently downloaded VandalProof, and a quick look at my contributions shows that a few hundred vandals have been slapped with warning or test templates, and a few hundred articles have had vandalism reverted in just a couple of days.
  3. 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?
    The closest thing I have come to an edit conflict was when myself and another user, I believe it was an anon IP, were in disagreement of the canon-status of the game Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks. Fellow MK contributor EVula warned the user and was prepared to take further action due to his Admin status, and the situation was avoided pretty quickly. Now the majority of discussions about the canon status of the game are found on the article's talk page. As for users that have caused me stress.... well a quick look at my talk page and the second archive with reveal a user who was not happy that I mentioned to him that blanking the Da Vinci Code article because it "contains Sin" was unacceptable, and now a rather long discussion has gone into how Wikipedia should be a Christian-only website.... fortunately I think that discussion has just about ended. Appropriate action was taken, IP's were warned, a few users were banned, and fortunately it appears to have come to an end (more or less!)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/The_Haunted_Angel&oldid=1078961359"