Wikipedia:Editor review/Ryan Vesey

Ryan Vesey

Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs · count) I have been editing Wikipedia since late February. In the beginning I made casual contributions until I got blocked. After becoming unblocked, I believe my contributions improved greatly. I already understand the problems that led to my block and have been mentored by JamesBWatson and gone through the adoption program with Worm That Turned so I would prefer it if reviewers focus on my editing after the block. Ryan Vesey contribs 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My contributions to Wikipedia have been very diverse. I have participated in vandal fighting, New Page Patrolling (CSD log here), the Help Desk, and many more areas. I have also worked extensively with some new users to help show them the ropes on Wikipedia. I have been very proud of my contributions to the Help Desk as I believe I have helped people solve their problems many times. I have also been working hard on a couple of articles. I am in the process of getting Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary), which looked like this when I started, to good article status. I have also improved Imagine No Malaria from its state here. I like my contribution to Allen Morris (historian) which began as a stub with almost no content. I am especially proud of my contributions to the Thomas Bridges and Allen Morris article because I knew nothing about the subjects before I began my contributions.

3. 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 been in two "major" editing disputes. The first one lead to my block. The dispute began where I replaced a {{citation needed}} template that an editor had removed without sourcing. He became angry and brought the issue to my talk page where he said some things that angered me personally. Not knowing the proper channels, I brought it to some administrators at the time. The general response was "Why are you telling me?" This made me angry and disappointed with Wikipedia, so I vandalized in order to get blocked. I couldn't stop editing and was unblocked and have been much more productive since. My second editing dispute was resolved on the talk page of the articles involved and that is how I will resolve all further editing disputes.

Self Comments

I thought I would add a little bit to the things I have done. I have done a lot of anti-vandal work using Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool and Huggle. I also make many edits to New Pages using AWB. One of the things that brings me a lot of satisfaction is working with newcomers. I helped User:Agent Smith30303 with problems he was having [1]. I have also worked extensively with User:Since 10.28.2010. I am currently working on an article with information removed from Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary) at User:Ryan Vesey/Missions to Patagonia. I also reconsidered a deletion and am helping improve the page Nash Street. Just recently, I helped guide an editor with his edits to Menthol cigarettes which required me to take on more of a reviewing standpoint than I have in the past. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

Comments by H1nkles

I have worked with RV on a couple of article reviews. The articles reviewed are here and here. In my experience this editor has displayed a genuine desire to improve the articles and has defined goals for making contributions to the encyclopedia. RV has taken the critiques of the articles with maturity and with the understanding that we are working together in good faith to better the project. I have not seen any of the issues or anger that lead to RV's block, instead I have seen an understanding of protocol and a desire to be a good editor. I commend RV for the work done and encourage him to continue on the path he is going. Best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 22:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Review by Reaper Eternal

Antivandalism : You don't seem to do a whole lot of this (only ~700 Huggle edits), but what you have done looks good!

Namespaces : Your contributions to the various namespaces indicate that your understanding of Wikipedia is maturing. I am pleased to see that you contribute to the talk and Wikipedia talk namespaces, as those indicate you know what makes things tick. However, you have an abnormally high number of user space edits, but that is probably just the mentoring by Worm That Turned.

Article contributions : Here, you don't seem to have too much. Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary) seems to be the height of your contributions (post-block), and it has several maintenance tags on it. That said, almost all the material is adequately cited to reliable sources, so good luck! Additionally, good work on reviewing good article nominations (maybe make one yourself?)!

Policy : You knowledge of CSD seems to be pretty good. I also was able to review your deleted contributions, and they seemed pretty good too. (I'm now an admin. Yay! ;)) Your AFD contributions also seem mostly solid.

Other comments : If you ever decide to have an RFA, I would suggest waiting until at least June 2012 due to the vandalism indefblock. I would recommend reading WP:LEAD and applying it to the lead section of your article.

Overall : I see an editor maturing past a block. Doubtless, the mentoring helped you tremendously. I would recommend reading up on the Manual of Style. I would also recommend going through some good articles, such as those by User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:Casliber, and User:Juliancolton. These should help you learn more of what to expect when your article is under scrutiny. Additionally, I would recommend reading up on WP:BLOCK, WP:PROTECT, WP:REVDEL, and WP:DELETE before your RFA, when/if it does come up. Good luck!

Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, just as a response to some of that, I have a DYK for HMS Doterel (1880) and I will hopefully have one for HMS Phoenix (N96). I have also nominated HMS Doterel as a good article. At the time I made this anti-vandalism was the crux of my editing, with over 50% of my edits being automated ones. I have tried to take a step back from Huggle and do some content work. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Review and comments by Calmer Waters

You have had some interaction with fighting vandalism; yet, in my opinion, have not developed that vandal fighter mentality, which I believe is a positive and very important. Just as removing vandalism and blocking disruptive accounts are important, so is the ability to keep an open mind about assuming good faith of new and IP users edits. Especially at WP:AIV where new roll-backers can sometimes be overly hasty in what is considered indisputable vandalism.

Next regarding your article contributions and understanding of guidelines, policies and principles. I see that you shown that you can create material, the core essence of Wikipedia. I have looked at five of the articles that are in the main space along with two of the list you have created and a set index. Your use of inline citations are cleanly formatted, and articles are well written. I strongly believe that HMS Phoenix (N96) is very well on its way to becoming a good article. Once this is done, you will have a submarine GA article template to use to help with all your fellow HMS article creations. User:White Shadows used this technique to raise about 20+ German Uboat articles to GA status and two FAs, if this is a route that interest you. Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary) issues appear to be addressed and I see that it is currently a GA candidate.

Your community involvement and dedication to the site is commendable. Already an officer for a Wikiproject and working with new users as part of Adopt-a-user. These show that you are not only concerned with article creation and maintenance, but also the fundamental aspects of the site. You have shown the ability to voice your opinions at various discussion pages in an intelligent and non-confrontational style. You have shown to be willing to put in the time to work with those that have been disruptive (mentoring) and those that need help (adapt-a-user and help desk). You have worked at newpage patrol and like reaper above, your nominations have been general good. A few things to remember is to nominate CSDs for the particular criteria that fits it most. An example is Phill estevez that you nominated as A7, that would have been better served as a G3 as the person said the person is fake (It would not have been a A7 candidate because it said he was part of the sheen family). Yes, either would have been eventually deleted, but A7 is a very highly contentious criteria that should not be used as a fall back category when a better more accurate one can be used. Remember that if it doesn't fit one of the categories and you still feel it should be deleted, don't be afraid of using PROD or AFD. Does this always happen in reality. NO. If one wants to be a good administrator one day and not be burned at RfA should it be done correctly. YES :) I do like that you remember to nominate R2s for redirects left behind after moving articles from the mainspace back into userspace, like with Theophilus (Pashkovsky).

You have used edit summaries in 100% of all mainspace edits (major and minor) in the last 4 months. Very important in communicating what types of edits were made. Your automated edits are not too high IMO at 37.33%. I myself could care less about automated edits, as probably 85% of administrator backlog is script assisted. Overall, I would just like to say that I think you are doing very good work here. Try not to over-expand yourself to exhaustion through, periodic burnout is a very real thing here, even with our most dedicated Wikipedians.

In a perfect world, sysops permissions could be requested and given at WP:permissions like almost everything else, but as we know it can't. Being an administrator is only a big deal now because the community has likened it to be. Before it was the full set of tools needed to perform efficiently here to be given to an editor that showed the clue of being able to understand when to use them and when to not use them. It was not as important to be able to show when and where you planned to use them right off the bat. With that said I would only suggest that you keep in mind that many of those who make good administers already act in a way that many believe they already are. Civility, patience, clue, ability to review policies and guidelines before acting, and generally acting in the self interest of the community and site are things that can make a great addition to the corp. Someone thinking "I thought you were already an administer" speaks volumes to this. I strongly believe that soon, if you carry on the way you are currently, you will be a sysops without the bit who just needs it turned on and I myself would strongly support correcting that. Kindly Calmer Waters 21:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. I do have one question. What is your opinion on dual tagging of articles for speedy deletion? I do this in most cases where I see two or more criteria which could be viable. I usually do this because admins all have different opinions of what falls under which criteria. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand why the need for more than one tag if the editor is sure it fits that criteria. If it fits more than one, say a G11 advert and G12 copyright. I would go with just the G12. It is more serious of the two for legal reasons and is more readily watched at CAT:CSD and would plausible be dealt with quicker. The same could be said with A7 importance + G10 attack. Some admins won't touch an A7, but almost all will address an G10. Also multi twinkle tagging is quite bitey on the article creator's talk page (one, two three notices for one article). Does that make sense, or am I missing the question entirely (wouldn't be the first time :)?

That just my opinion through. Others may look at it differently and I suppose if it fits more than one, it is not wrong to tag as both, but I myself would just choose the greatest infraction, mostly because of the twinkle bite thing. Kindly Calmer Waters 22:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just as a side note, it really does only leave one notice User talk:Oliver Maule. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, your right. Was thinking about if someone was to process them one at a time. I failed to think about how twinkle combines them when clicked at the same time. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Calmer Waters 01:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, and thanks for the great review. It will help me improve much of my editing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by N5iln

Even a cursory review of this user's contributions demonstrate an enviable enthusiasm for improving the Wikipedia project as a whole. The downside to that enthusiasm appears to be that he occasionally forgets to assume good faith. While Wikipedia has a significant amount of vandalism occurring every day to untold numbers of articles, templates and the like, there's an even greater number of constructive edits, by a couple of orders of magnitude. As was pointed out to me a while back, I would like to remind Ryan that antivandalism efforts are not a race, and it's much more important to get it right than it is to get it quick. With all that said, the work I see at the Help desk is admirable, and easily cancels out any missteps in the countervandalism arena. In short, keep up the good work, learn from your mistakes, and don't be afraid to ask questions or ask for other opinions. Wikipedia's nature is such that questionable editing activity gets solved, and it doesn't really matter who it is that solves it. Don't let WP:EDITCOUNTITIS run your efforts. Best of fortunes, Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Homer Brewery I guess because I've got some stick recently because I've taken a negative view on articles' level of claimed notability, and I approve of breweries. Feel free to retag, and I'll leave it for someone else to decide. Meanwhile, I'll go for a beer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Kudpung

While your enthusiasm is laudable, I echo the review by Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) concerning your temperament. Work on Wikipedia requires patience and an even greater collaborative spirit that in most other areas, so do remember that other people may have put a vast amount of research and work into some areas and are just as keen on progress as you are. Some people you make personal attacks to may even be the editors who created and motivated a project from the very beginning - remember that they too are operating in the very best interests of Wikipedia otherwise they would not be here. Getting involved in too many policy areas at once is not necessarily the best way to get your contributions noticed, and may be regarded as over enthusiastic by experienced users. Be sure to start things that you wil have time to develop and follow through and above all consider joining projects where you have a good knowledge of the policies or processes under discussion, and be sure that when you do jump in, you will have have read the goals and 'mission statement' of a project and its work so far. Good luck, and keep up the good work.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)