Wikipedia:Editor review/EclipseSSD

EclipseSSD

EclipseSSD (talk · contribs) I have been unsuccessful in my first RfA nomination, and I am hoping to run for a second nomination soon. EclipseSSD (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Review from Dloh cierekim

Hello, EclipseSSD. I've done an editor review. I put emphasis on negatives rather than positives because the negatives are areas for improvement. It's better they be brought here and now instead of at an RFA later. (I hope I'm not coming across too gruffly. It has more to do with my personality than your merits/demerits.) Hopefully, you'll find this helpful.

Areas needing attention--

Gotta be careful with the AIV reports. Had stopped hours earlier, and no edits past final warning.
On the other hand, This might be a little bitey.
Image:Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ.jpg. Fairuse images. <<sigh>> Try to use them only when there is no other choice.

User:EclipseSSD/Archive6#Call_of_Duty_.26_RP Don't know what prompted this. Sometimes we disagree over whether or not reliable sourcing exists.

Proposed almost anythings can be notable. Also, I would not call it a "vote".

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Real_democracy_in_america&diff=prev&oldid=215745897 I took some hits on my RFA for saying "per nom." "Doesn't belong here" does not provide meaningful discussion.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Walters_%28boxer%29&diff=prev&oldid=214217933 bad writing is amenable to good writing. Not a good reason to delete.

"Please goes" a long way toward maintaining civility.

Overall appraisal and advice-

Overall, you are a good user. I see a lot of good edits with good edit summaries. Featured article work looks good. Wikiproject work is a plus.(I would recommend that you ask some of the editors you have had interaction with to comment here.) I would like to see more experience overall and a more thorough understanding of the admin related policies. I would like to see more article building edits, more RCPatrolling/AIV reporting, more CSD and AFD experience. It would be good to branch out from the areas in which you have been editing. Wikify more articles, find some article to create and/or expand, run through random articles with an idea of learning more about how the articles are built and adding categories as needed and making any other improvements you can. I would like to see more participation in policy board discussions. Taking part in WP:RFA is a good way to learn from the experiences of others. I would recommend reviewing the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. I would not recommend seeking adminship in less than another 3 months and another 3,000 edits and then getting another Editor review. I would recommend seeking an [Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching|admin coach]] before seeking RFA.

Hope this helps, Cheers. Dloh cierekim 13:46, 10 June 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 have managed to make The Texas Chain Saw Massacre to good article status, and I am pleased about it because I've managed to do it in only one day! I am also most pleased about my contributions to films and video games because those are the areas of speciality for me.
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 been in a few conflicts, however all of them have been dealt with quickly and in a calm and orderly fashion, so I have no grudge against anybody here on Wikipedia.
When is it appropriate to block another user?
I believe that it is appropriate to block a user, when he/she has been given sufficient warnings and still does not comply with what is being said.
What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A ban is a formal revocation of privelages on all or some part of Wikipedia. The offending users in question can be banned by the community, ArbCom, Jimmy Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation. Blocking means of enforcing a ban by technically preventing a user from editing Wikipedia (definition at WP:BLOCK). A user can also be blocked from editing for any amount of time. If a user is a vandal only account, that user is and should always be blocked indefinitely.
What was the most important criticism you received on the prior RFA? How have you since improved your editing?
The most important criticism I have received includes not making enough edits in the project space, as well as being more involved around Wikpedia. I believe I have improved, by more than doubling my edits in the project space, contributing significantly to a numer of GAs, and been involved in such things as WP:AIV, and stop vandalism from taking place.
What are the steps to dispute resolution?
The steps to dispute resolution include, focusing on the content, have a calm cool manner, discussing the issues with the other party, and possibly working things out. Additionally, it includes calling a truce, and turning to others for help, if for any reason, the issues cannot be settled in a calm and rational way. Finally, measures of last resort include WP:AN, and the Arbitration Committee.