Wikipedia:Editor review/Chip123456

Chip123456

Chip123456 (talk · contribs · count) Hi, I'm Chip123456. I have been editing regularly on Wikipedia since December 2011 and asking for review as I would like at the end if this year/next year to apply for administrator rights and I also would like to see what I am doing wrong and right. Thanks. Chip123456 (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
My primary contributions on Wikipedia are reverting non-constructive edits and I do make the odd edit at WP:PERM. I am pleased about graduating from the WP:CVUA and being granted rollback rights, which I was told by an admin was quick as it took them thirteen months and took me under 5, not that the time to get them makes a difference! 1
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.
Yes, I have been in quite a few which have caused me great stress. This is when I started off on Wikipedia when I was a bit shaky on the ground and I could of dealt with them better! If, in the future I get in any other disputes, I will go to the article talk page to discuss ideas, so everyone can be heard so we can ensure the article is at a consistent quality standard.

Reviews

Generally speaking - so far so good. After a quick look at your edits it seems that you're familiar with the whole counter-vandalism routine. However, to be a serious contender for RFA you'll have to have a record for content creation as well as participation in deletion process (i.e. CSD, AFDs) and other administrative tasks. At the moment, this is something which you have little to no experience in. Counter-vandalism is valued, but it's something which doesn't hold much weight within the RFA. -Cntras (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have been involved in the CSD, putting up articles which can be deleted. All of the ones I have put up for deletion so far apart from one have been deleted, but I will try and get in more with AFD. Thanks again! --Chip123456 (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in light of your recent comments on the Srabasti Basu AfD, I should add that people at the RFA look into how you are able to rationalise the decision to keep or delete. Rather than 'per above', it's better to refer to a particular policy (i.e. WP:BIO, WP:GNG) and explain whether or not it meets the set criteria. It's not so much about the number of results, as it is about the quality of the sources in substantiating the notability of the subject. Also, 'Not all referenced' isn't really a valid reason to delete a page. Hope that helps, -Cntras (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does a lot! I'm taking it steady on there at the moment because this I haven't been on there too long. Thanks for your constructive criticism . --Chip123456 (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1], followed by this, is a really really bad way to interact with new editors here, especially combined with some boilerplate note on their talk page. Do you think tacking a "thankyou" on the end makes this in any whay polite? This editing style drives off new contributors. Why not have a look for some sources before wiping material? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calisber. Thank you for your comment, it has been acknowledged and it will be used to help me interact better in future. The user is not brand new and has been here for a few months. I hope it didn't sound like I was making their edit sound bad, it was unsourced. Usually they would have a general note placed on their talk but I gave them more of an informal, polite note. They re-added it so then I gave them a formal note. I believe there are worse things on Wikipedia that could make new editors feel uncomfortable. I have added a welcome note on their page. Again thank you.--Chip123456 (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with Chip123456 shows that he is very inattentive and way too quick with the buttons. He does correct his mistakes but some information gets lost in the process and is generally very irritating.
But that's not Chip123456's biggest problem. He already thinks he's the highest level admin, if not the owner of Wikipedia. His approach is "my way or the highway". In my case, he demanded things he had no right to demand and came down to threats in the most innocent situation, quickly escalating it to a conflict. I truly believe he can benefit from a MAJOR attitude adjustment. Nomad (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the entirety of Chip123456's and Leo711's (a.k.a. Nomad) interaction with one another: diff 1 diff 2 I won't offer any comment on same as I believe it speaks for itself. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, you are crossing the line between constructive criticism and personal attacks. It's okay to give Chip some advice on what he can improve on, but claiming that he thinks he owns Wikipedia won't do anything but offend Chip, who I believe is a great editor. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

too quick with my buttons? I didn't mean to revert your edits Leo or Nomad, when I was going through the recent changes,I was scrolling down and accidentally reverted it, posting an apology to you on my talk page and in the edit history. I then asked if you would change your signature, and another user, kindly but you ignored us and called it a threat. --Chip123456 (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for illustrating my point. Nomad (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this I the right time to say that Nomad/Leo has been blocked for failing to change his signature, which was advised by me and Psycho in the first place, politely which is stated in the block--Chip123456 (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on Chip123456 is that he is a great editor and excellent at reverting vandalism. The only encounters I have had with him are having my rollbacks fail because he reverts vandalism faster than me. I think that he can be trusted with the Admin tools and I have no complaints. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]