Wikipedia:Editor review/Unionhawk (2)

Unionhawk

Unionhawk (talk · contribs · count) I do want to become an admin, but, in the short term, I am once again considering adopting a new user. All constructive criticism is welcome. Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 00:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

• Hi Unionhawk - sorry it took so long to get around to doing a review for you - I know that I said a couple of weeks back that I would do one, and I kind of got distracted! Anyway, here we go...

I'll deal with this in two sections - one about you as an editor in general, the other in where I feel you need to go between now and an RfA.

User conduct: you tend to be pretty good with your summaries - looking at your history, it is fairly easy to see what you have done in your edits! Your communications on talk pages tends to be a bit terse, but I do not see any problems with them per se. Your attitude towards others seems OK - I don't get the impression that you are overly friendly towards them, but I also don't get the impession of hostility either. That's not a criticism, by the way - different people have different ways of interacting with others

Edits: Out of 7898 edits (including the 731 deleted ones), just less than 30% of your edits are on articles (with a further 12% on article talk pages), and about 30% of all your edits are automated (Twinkle, Huggle, etc). This shows me that you are doing a fair amount of vandalism patrol, but less direct work on articles beyond this. A lot of the contributions that I do see are minor ones. Don't get me wrong - this kind of work is essential to ensure that articles are accurate and tidy!

RfA: First of all, I am glad to see that you are receiving Admin Coaching. I didn't look at your coaching page, as I am also going through it (with another admin), and don't want to risk seeing the "answers" to future questions that my coach may ask me.

Please note that my comments below are merely my opinion!

It's good to see you contributing to other RfAs - although most of the ones I looked at (I didn't look at every one, just a sample of your support/neutral/opposes) seemed to basically use the response "support/neutral/oppose because of what editor xyz said". Although there is no reason why you should not do so (and I think most editors do from time to time), sometimes it's good to give a more detailed reason - admins are expected to explain their reasoning clearly - and some expect RfA candidates to show this in their discussions at RfA, RfB, xfD, etc. Looking at some of your xfD contributions, you seem more inclined to give more thorough reasons for your !votes, using Wikipedia's major policies as a baseline.

It's also good to see you contributing at ANI and AN, although sometimes your comments are very short!

One thing I noticed on your "main" user page is the notice "This user is the owner of multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy." - I might have missed it, but I couldn't see any mention on your user pages of what other accounts you have used. This could be a cause for concern for some editors.

Another thing that some editors may be put off by is the fact that you are still at High School - although there are no age restrictions on adminship, many feel that an admin should be 18+.

Recommendations:

1. Work more on articles, using non-automated edits a bit more.
2. As at your last review, I would suggest that you wait a while more before adopting another editor.
3. Continue with the admin coaching, and I look forward to seeing an RfA for you at sometime in the future!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Review-- I came here after seeing comment of yours. I found it odd that you seemed to be admonishing the victim (Good Day) for not notifying a revolving harasser IP of his report at AN/I. Then I noticed your "zero-tolerance" policy on your user page. I must say zero-tolerance goes against our WP:IAR policy, so please reconsider that. This isn't a public school district, we can use our brains here. Civility is important. But that's not why we're here. We are here to build an encyclopedia that people can rely on, and the readers won't care how nice we are if we fail to achieve that. Anyway, cheers and good luck to you in future... Auntie E. 16:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You have a point with the zero-tolerance thing, but, really, I ignore my own rule all the time there. I'm not quite sure why I put that on there...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Since my last review, RuneScape was quick-failed in the GAN for a {{rs?}} tag. I have done a lot of work at AfD, and have eliminated my habit of using Huggle to get a lot of contributions.

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?

   Since my last review, I have been in many editing disputes. Some of this I guess I sort of should have expected for becoming a Rollbacker, but I never expected becoming involved in an arbitration case. The debate I listed in my last ER is nothing compared to the many disputes that have flown my way. None have caused me an incredible amount of stress. Wikipedia is nothing to lose sleep over.