Wikipedia:Editor review/Asenine

Asenine

Asenine (talk · contribs) I have been on wikipedia for very close to two years now, didn't really understand the whole thing at first. In 2007 my editing picked up somewhat - mostly working on articles and fighting vandals. Now though, I mostly do anti-vandalism and CSD/AfD. Recently (from, say, the 5th of April to the 15th) my editing took a turn for the worst - I was having quite a few issues in my life and this was affecting my judgment and editing of the encylopaedia (as such, this behavior was somewhat unusual for myself and I ask that you not review me on this period). Thankfully now I am back and ready to edit again.

Anyway, I wish to be reviewed so that I can improve further. My RfA was highly unsuccessful with only one support, but it didn't matter to me as the kind words and constructive criticism of the people there allowed me to see what I needed to do to reach that goal. Now I ask that you review me so I can change my actions so that they can be of better use to the encyclopaedia as a whole. I look forward to your comments. asenine ^t/_c 11:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

By CycloneNimrod

Hi there, Asenine, I saw your comment on Delldot's user page and felt like leaving you a review. At the time of writing this exact statement i've only ever seen you around in RfA but even so, after reviewing some of your contributions, i'll see what I can say about you. Let's begin! :)

I've decided to split this into two sections, the good and the bad essentially (although, that said, the bad is quite possibly neutral).

Good stuff:

6954 edits not including any which have been deleted, a nice count for someone who is looking to go for another RfA. You've got a good amount of edits all around in AIV, AfD, RfA etc. as well as article edits so congratulations i've no worries there.

You've been regularly commenting on other user's talk pages, often without automation, and that's a very good point indeed. It's shocking to see how many candidates run for RfA with only automated user talk comments.

I see you've been helping to improve some images at the Commons, such as: Audicom66.JPG That's nice to see :)

You've got good knowledge of warning templates (especially automated) and have made good use of Twinkle to revert vandalism.

I've seen several good nominations at AfD, I won't list them all but one such AfD was here.

Neutral/Bad? Maybe?

Although i've said that I've seen a good amount of editing that isn't automated, I still see a little bit too much which is (just by glancing at your contributions). I set the limit to 1000 when looking through and almost all of them were followed by the letters (TW) or (AWB) ;) Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk?_Sign? 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At RfA, i've seen a few too many votes (for my liking, it's just my opinion) that are 'per somebody else' and do not show your own understanding of the process. Perhaps I simply haven't viewed enough of your votes but most of what I have follows this format.

That's pretty much all I have to say. You're definitely on the right track and I hope to see you around Wikipedia and at your next RfA (to support, of course!) Hope this hasn't come across as too harsh or too uninformed, it was done reasonably quickly! Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk?_Sign? 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By delldot
Hi Asenine, some thoughts:

I thought Cyclone's review sounded very reasonable. The one point on which I would offer minor disagreement would be the idea of "too many" automated edits. Surely it's better for the project for you to do more edits, as long as they're helping the project on the whole? I mean, is it better for the project to revert vandalism for an hour and then go watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer for an afternoon, or to revert vandalism all afternoon? :P (Heh, no offense to Cyclone by any means, and this could be a complete misinterpretation of what he meant). It is true that some RfA voters (or whatever) look for a variety of types of edits, but I've always been of the opinion that it doesn't matter what you're working on or in what proportions you work on it as long as it's helping the project.
My hat is off to you for your calm, kind, and patient handling of the potential conflict at User talk:4wajzkd02. You managed to resolve your differences amicably and maintain the peace where a lot of editors might have fueled a conflict. You didn't lose your cool even when faced with criticism, and readily admitted to mistakes, and were very friendly and kind. This is exactly the kind of behavior I'd hope to see in an admin (and I've seen a lot worse in some!).
It warms my heart to hear you say you enjoy helping new users, I think that's great.
I had a look at Initiatives of Change as a random sample of your writing. I thought that the lead left it kind of unclear what the organization does. I would change the very lead sentence to an objective claim about what the organization does from what the organization says about itself. From a brief look, it looks like the article may have a few NPOV problems by being too sympathetic to the organization. The most fundamental problem, though, is the lack of independent sources. Without them, it's hard to tell if the organization is even notable, let alone whether the article is unbiased. You understand why using the group's own website as a source for the article is not sufficient, right? If this is a good representation of your article work, I would suggest that you work on your writing skills (if this is an area that interests you to work on, of course). Since referencing is of utmost importance, I would work on adding references to articles you care about. I noticed that Newton Faulkner, Rate Your Music, and others, all randomly chosen from your list in Q1, also need inline citations from reliable sources. Rate Your Music also has material that looks like it may be OR and I'm not convinced of its notability. Detrimentalist has no sources as well as unclear notability. If these are representative samples of your article work, I'm not convinced of your understanding of the core content policies. Can you put my mind at ease by giving me a brief rundown of your understanding of them, or point me to some article or other work that demonstrates it?
Your answer to Q2 was very reasonable, and seeing how you handled yourself in the potential conflict below it, I can easily believe that you would indeed handle yourself that maturely.

I think it's great how well you took the advice from your RfA, and I think you have an excellent attitude, play well with others, and will make a great admin at some point. I would strongly recommend that you wait on another RfA until after you've done significant work producing high-quality, well-referenced articles, or done other work that builds and demonstrates your understanding of the content policies.

Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or want to discuss any of this further, I think it's a good idea for ER's to be dialogs. In fact, if you ever have any questions, drop me a line and I'll do my best to help. delldot on a public computer talk 10:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I am especially happy about my help with the community. I have helped users out when they have been confused over boilerplate templates and article disputes (this occured with User:Susan E Webb), and I enjoy adopting users by giving them help and support. It brightens my life to see that I help out in the community. On the article side of things, I have created or significantly improved the following articles:
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 not been put under stress by other users before, but if I was to be faced by it I would leave them a notice regarding the problem, and deal with it efficiently and completely in good faith. I have been involved in only one edit conflict in the past over my addition of band logos to articles, but this was because I and another user (User:IllaZilla) were interpreting a consensus in different ways. The conflict was over soon after it began, as I backed down - I could see his point of view and I started understanding why he believed as he did. This conflict was carried out completely in good faith. If another conflict were to occur I would discuss with the user why their point of view was as such and would quite happily back down as soon as I knew they were in the right. If I still believed I was in the right, I would discuss with the user how to resolve the problem in the best and most constructive way.

My experience

I invite you to peruse User_talk:4wajzkd02#Bruce_Barclay_.28Commissioner.29. I do not dispute the CSD actions, but I do believe the edits to my talk page were NOT:

I do believe they did not follow Best Practices --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited this note to reference the full discussion, as fully documented on my user talk page, as the editor in question has archived the discussion from his user talk page, to which I previously linked. I will note that, given that I referenced this situation as documented on his user talk in this Edit Review, I sincerely feel the Editor in question has demonstrated unacceptable behavior by editing my comments (in fact, by moving the entire discussion and placing it in a new location, such that the link at the top of my comments would show no discussion). --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have settled our differences, and archiving is perfectly OK via WP:AATP. asenine ^{say what?} 21:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]