Wikipedia:Editor review/Camaron1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Camaron1

Camaron1 (talk · contribs) Hello, I am Camaron1 (Chris) and I have been on Wikipedia since March (over six months) and I as of yet had not had any kind of community review on what I do here. I have been involved in varies topics of articles on Wikipedia including Eurovision, gaming, and schools as well as other maintenance work. I am currently not a admin but I hope to be one some day; I am currently receiving admin coaching from The Rambling Man. Camaron1 | Chris 18:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

[edit] Reviewed by Moonriddengirl

I must say, I've enjoyed looking over your recent contributions. You seem to be on top of your game, and that's always fun to witness. :) Your talk contributions seem positive and friendly—absolutely nothing of concern as regards civility. I even like the structure of your user page, which is a very trivial observation, but I don't care: I do. You've got great edit summary usage, consistent and descriptive. It looks like you're making very good contributions at various projects and in the backstage arenas of Wikipedia, with a lot of valuable wikignoming. I don't see any recent vandalism work or a lot of substantial article contribution, but I see a lot of AfDs and assessing and tagging. As far as I can see, every article you touch comes away better off for your involvement.

With regards to AfDs, you did nice work here especially. That demonstrates to me an interest in an article's wellbeing that goes beyond !voting. Similarly, it was good to see you return for discussion here. Your first comment there could have been more helpful with actual links or if you had added the results of your search to the article, as you did at American Pacific International School. If time constraints or other issues interfere, you might want to note that. Obviously, it isn't required, but you demonstrate a willingness to go the extra mile that's good to see, so I thought I'd bring it up. :)

I am confused on a couple of points. Why do you need so many doppelganger accounts? It seems slightly paranoid, and also maybe a bit grabby. Suppose there's a Cemeron out there who wants to be User:Cemeron? :) Vandals who want to parody you will find a way even if you've staked a claim on all the similar names you can come up with. If you do have a good reason for this practice, though, I'd be glad for you to share. :) Maybe it's something other editors (like, say, me) should consider.

I am also somewhat confused as to your attitude on merging stubs. Your userpage says, "Stubs should be merged into larger articles as appropriate; even if it is only to a time in which a good verified article can and will be written on the subject". Authored essay says "merging an article which has potential to be successful as standalone article in the long-run can constrain encyclopedia expansion". These two perspectives seem a bit at odds; you might wish to make clear your actual position. (Overall, I like the essay, by the way, but I would, because it generally meshes with my perspective. :))

With regards to vandalism, it's hard to assess your handling of such since I didn't see you addressing that to speak of in your recent history. You might want to dip into recent changes patrol for a day or so to get a feel for it if you haven't, particularly given your aspirations to adminship. In my opinion, it might be helpful for editors who review your request to be able to see a demonstration of your handling of this.

With regards to speedy deletions, I note that you used A7 improperly on Sony_Ericsson_W660i, but that actually excites me in a good way, because you fixed it. :D We all make mistakes; your response to this one shows that you are thoughtful and attentive to your actions and that you are invested in following proper procedures. Then you displayed proper knowledge of WP:PROD when another editor tried to re-PROD after yours was contested. You took it to AfD quite rightly, but not before you had tried to fix your concerns with the article yourself. Well done! And I also like your work here. I feel pretty confident based on the speedies I've seen you do lately that you've got a good grasp of that process and those policies—with one exception. I'm not sure why you tagged Boone iowa, the sole contents of which were "Boone iowa sux", as nonsense. The administrator who deleted the article did so under that tag as well, but G1 explicitly excludes partisan screeds and vandalism. I think you did quite right to tag it for elimination, but I would suggest G3 (vandalism) or G10 (attack) would have been better criteria to use. I bring this up solely to encourage you to apply the criteria carefully. As an admin working deletion, I find that article creators quite often come back to question our choices (even creators you would never expect to), and a strict adherence to guidelines may make it easier to deal with them when they do.

My only other suggestion to you at this point would be that you might want to consider stepping up your article contribution or, at least, documenting it better on your userpage so that those who evaluate your performance can get a good idea of how you handle basic encyclopedia building. There are some examples listed on your userpage, but even those sometimes show more wikignoming than extensive writing. (Note, I have no complaints with what you do, but, like you, am very aware that some evaluators of RfA are extremely interested in this aspect of contributing.) Maybe you'd like to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles or WP:RA to see if there's anything in there you could create. For example, although this is a specific sort of school, there's a few listed at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music#Schools_and_music_education.

Oh, and while I've seen evidence in your contributions of your work towards consensus building, you might want to demonstrate your abilities as regards dispute resolution. There's always something needing help at Wikipedia:Requests for comment and frequently something going on at Wikipedia:Third opinion. We can use positive, friendly, knowledgeable editors there. :D

Good luck and happy editing. I'll be watching this until I'm reasonably sure you've had a chance to see it. If you'd like me to expand on anything, you can let me know here or at my talk page. Either works for me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review. I will give a full response on the points you raised as soon as I can. Camaron1 | Chris 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
As you feel will benefit you. That's the purpose of editor review, after all. :D I'm often around. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is my full response. I am glad you have enjoyed looking over my contributions - that is very encouraging to me. I hope you don't mind if I quote sections of your review so I can respond easily:

It looks like you're making very good contributions at various projects and in the backstage arenas of Wikipedia, with a lot of valuable wikignoming.

Thats great to hear, I have never considered myself a wikignome before but I guess it is probably true! :)

I even like the structure of your user page, which is a very trivial observation, but I don't care: I do.

Thanks, nobody has ever commented on it before - it took me quite a while to produce, but I think it was worth it.

Your first comment there could have been more helpful with actual links or if you had added the results of your search to the article, as you did at American Pacific International School. If time constraints or other issues interfere, you might want to note that. Obviously, it isn't required, but you demonstrate a willingness to go the extra mile that's good to see, so I thought I'd bring it up. :)

Yes, time constraints are a issue I have to deal with, and I will take up your suggestion and keep pointing out the issue of time and AFDs (including with fixing articles). I will however always try to provide links e.t.c on request.

Why do you need so many doppelganger accounts? It seems slightly paranoid, and also maybe a bit grabby. Suppose there's a Cemeron out there who wants to be User:Cemeron? :) Vandals who want to parody you will find a way even if you've staked a claim on all the similar names you can come up with. If you do have a good reason for this practice, though, I'd be glad for you to share. :) Maybe it's something other editors (like, say, me) should consider.

You bring up a good point. I recently created the doppelganger accounts as I released my user name is not a common word and is venerable to impersonation. I have noticed in the past people muddle-up the a and e in my user name producing user names like Cemaron and Cemeron. Obviously, doppelganger accounts can only go so far - people creating user names like "Camaron1 is a idiot" to get at me can't be avoided for example. I don't think someone would get away with impersonating me as "Camaron2" or "Camaron0" - but I might need those accounts in the long-run for editing (for example, to protect my main account) and I would rather avoid someone taking these user names for editing or vandalism before hand. I would however be willing to allow a bureaucrat to carry out a usurpation of some of my doppelganger accounts such as Cemeron in the unlikely event a established non-vandal user wanted the name.

I am also somewhat confused as to your attitude on merging stubs. Your userpage says, "Stubs should be merged into larger articles as appropriate; even if it is only to a time in which a good verified article can and will be written on the subject". Authored essay says "merging an article which has potential to be successful as standalone article in the long-run can constrain encyclopedia expansion". These two perspectives seem a bit at odds; you might wish to make clear your actual position.

My user page note was a little ambiguous to what I meant and is old - hence the contradiction. I have now fixed and updated it, thanks for the heads up.

(Overall, I like the essay, by the way, but I would, because it generally meshes with my perspective. :))

Thanks, I have yet to have any feedback on it and I am glad you generally agree with it.

With regards to vandalism, it's hard to assess your handling of such since I didn't see you addressing that to speak of in your recent history. You might want to dip into recent changes patrol for a day or so to get a feel for it if you haven't, particularly given your aspirations to adminship. In my opinion, it might be helpful for editors who review your request to be able to see a demonstration of your handling of this.

I do occasionally do some recent changes patrolling - and I also keep an eye on a number of articles for vandalism and handle it when it occurs as necessary. It is helpful for adminship and I will follow your advice and re-visit this area.

With regards to speedy deletions, I note that you used A7 improperly on Sony_Ericsson_W660i, but that actually excites me in a good way, because you fixed it. :D We all make mistakes; your response to this one shows that you are thoughtful and attentive to your actions and that you are invested in following proper procedures. Then you displayed proper knowledge of WP:PROD when another editor tried to re-PROD after yours was contested. You took it to AfD quite rightly, but not before you had tried to fix your concerns with the article yourself. Well done!

Thanks, yes I quickly realised I was mistaken and decided to give the article a chance by PRODing it instead. I then later took the issue over to AFD as it was clear that there was disagreement on the existence of the article.

And I also like your work here.

Thanks, I think it is wise to communicate with users and let them develop articles.

I feel pretty confident based on the speedies I've seen you do lately that you've got a good grasp of that process and those policies—with one exception. I'm not sure why you tagged Boone iowa, the sole contents of which were "Boone iowa sux", as nonsense. The administrator who deleted the article did so under that tag as well, but G1 explicitly excludes partisan screeds and vandalism. I think you did quite right to tag it for elimination, but I would suggest G3 (vandalism) or G10 (attack) would have been better criteria to use. I bring this up solely to encourage you to apply the criteria carefully. As an admin working deletion, I find that article creators quite often come back to question our choices (even creators you would never expect to), and a strict adherence to guidelines may make it easier to deal with them when they do.

I am glad you are confident with my knowledge of speedy deletion - I do think it is one area I have gained a lot of experience with recently. In the Boone iowa case I kind of missed that the article was a attack and vandalism, to me it looked like simple nonsense. I do understand that you need to apply the criteria carefully, and I will bear this in mind in the future.

My only other suggestion to you at this point would be that you might want to consider stepping up your article contribution or, at least, documenting it better on your userpage so that those who evaluate your performance can get a good idea of how you handle basic encyclopedia building. There are some examples listed on your userpage, but even those sometimes show more wikignoming than extensive writing. (Note, I have no complaints with what you do, but, like you, am very aware that some evaluators of RfA are extremely interested in this aspect of contributing.)

My weakness in solid article contributions has been brought up before and I am trying to take action to address the issue. In particular I am aiming to get SimCity 4 to GA soon, which will show a clear large-scale contribution by me if I mange it - I will also be able to proudly document it on my user-page!

Maybe you'd like to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles or WP:RA to see if there's anything in there you could create. For example, although this is a specific sort of school, there's a few listed at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music#Schools_and_music_education.

OK, I will take a look at those. I have not really started any article so I agree that this is a good area to get into.

Oh, and while I've seen evidence in your contributions of your work to-wards consensus building, you might want to demonstrate your abilities as regards dispute resolution. There's always something needing help at Wikipedia:Requests for comment and frequently something going on at Wikipedia:Third opinion. We can use positive, friendly, knowledgeable editors there. :D

Thats a good idea and will look into it, I would like to get more involved in dispute resolution and it will help build my skills.

I think thats everything, thanks again for the review! Camaron1 | Chris 14:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am pleased with my work to articles such as The Petersfield School, SimCity 4, and Eurovision Song Contest 2008 because they look a lot more encyclopedic than they did, and at least the latter two are on there way to GA status. I have taken a bigger role in groups such as Wikipedia:New pages patrol and Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol in reverting vandalism, PRODing and CSDing inappropriate pages, marking new pages for clean-up, and doing a clean-up on new pages myself. I am pleased at been part of these groups as they have improved my knowledge of Wikipedia policy and have improved my skills at dispute resolution - which are frequently needed in these kind of areas. I am also please with the larger role I now play at WP:AFD and WP:RFA - as in both areas been bold can be a challenge. Finally, I am proud of supporting the WikiProject WP:SCH; in particular as been one of the assessment team at WP:SCH/A - it gives a sense of community to improving school articles which need a lot of work on Wikipedia. Camaron1 | Chris 19:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. 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 consider editing Wikipedia a hobby which is supposed to be fun, so I try to avoid getting stressed by it as much as possible. The only two series conflicts I have been in are: 1. When a new user started a "notability crusade" against school articles in Hampshire which included deleting and re-directing articles without discussion, repeatably adding notability tags to articles generally against consensus, and been uncivil to-wards me and others. 2. When an IP user started repeatedly adding additions to the article SimCity Societies which did not follow WP:NPOV and went against consensus on the talk page; as well as making questionable edits to Template:Sim series, threatening "admin intervention", and labelling me and others as "vandals". In both cases I tried to stay calm and try and discuss the issue with them and others to find a solution, which is what I will do in any future conflicts. Camaron1 | Chris 19:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)