Wikipedia:Editor review/Sasha Callahan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


[edit] Sasha Callahan

Sasha Callahan (talk · contribs) Hi, my name is Sasha. I've been here since July 2007. I submitted an unsuccessful RFA in early September. I've thought about going through the process again, and am looking to see what people think of me. I particularly realize that I sometimes get uncivil when dealing with others, and am wondering what you think of this. I would also appreciate it if you could point out any area I should be more involved with. Happy Thanksgiving! (Sasha) 21:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Well, to start with, by the fact you mentioned there are some issues you need to work on, and also provided your own diffs, is a very good sign in my opinion; anyone who admits their own mistakes and works to fix them is a good person. You interact well with people most of the time, from what I've seen, and you are civil. However, I hope you'll refrain in the future from making comments like this, even if you are referring to an indefinitely blocked troll. With your work, however, you have over 1700 contributions, and in those edits, you appear to be a good-article writer, and, as you mentioned below, you've created four articles. You are active at AN/I, AIV, articles for creation, village pump (technical), RfA, RFPP, and UAA, and demonstrate knowledge of policy in those areas. Finally, with another RfA, I strongly suggest waiting for a good two months before attempting it again. First of all, as you said, you think you have some civility issues, and it'll be best to sort that problem out first. Secondly, as I said, you have over 1700 edits. Now I'm not an edit-counter when it comes to RfA, but others' are. I'd wait until you have over 3000 edits, with the mainspace being the namespace you've edited the most (some people oppose if someone has more Wikipedia-space edits than mainspace). I'd also wait for someone to nominate you as well. Personally, I think you're an excellent editor overall, and one day, you'll make an excellent administrator. If you have any questions, whether about this review or anything else, just ask me on my talk page. Acalamari 19:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I mostly mirror Acalamari's sentiment. People will overlook incivility a.) when it's not too bad and b.) if it was many many contribs ago. Neither is true in your case. The comments were quite a bit over the top (except for the KennSteinpedia one which got a chuckle from me) and there are only 1,700 edits to dilute them - and the last one Acalamari mentioned was just hours ago. I'm a strong believer in WP:DNIV. There's simply no reason to argue with obvious trolls, esp. when it's clear that everyone recognizes their trollness. And there's no reason to even respond to silly vandals, many of which are schoolkids who will actually laugh harder if you respond. I got a bit testy on one occasion before my RFA but I put a good 7,000-8,000 edits and six or seven months between those comments and my RFA. The result was that only one person even found a negative edit (which even I had mostly forgotten by that time) and neither that person nor anyone who !voted afterwards let it affect their opinion so I was unopposed. If you were to run for RFA now, I would predict a WP:SNOW close based on the edits mentioned here alone. In five or six months, you'd probably get landslide support assuming no similar edits pop up in the meantime. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I should probably clarify that I don't intend on going through another RFA until atleast next year. Happy Thanksgiving! (Sasha) 22:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I also mirror the above comments, but I have a question for you: can you explain your changes in position on the page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly? This is the only page that stands out in the Wikipedia section from the data compiled by the wannabe-kate tool, and I am a little curious as to why you switched from support to oppose and then to neutral. I'm not going to hold this against you or anything, its just a question that interests me and I would like to hear you thoughts on the matter. Otherwise your edit summary and count look good, I would say that next year when you refile an rfa you will be succsessfull in your quest for adminship should you keep up the good work. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It was oppose, support, neutral. But I was opposed at first because he didn't answer the questions, which I felt was a little bit of a mockery of the process. I then switched to support because he answered the questions, and because of his support of the block on KMweber, as the community can only assume good faith for so long. I went to nuetral (with the comment I would make my final decision soon) because I was considered some of the opposes fairly strong arguments. Its important to note I never, for one second, thought he was a sockpuppet (or used sockpuppets abusively) and that whole issue was not a factor in my decision to drop support and go neutral. Happy Thanksgiving! (Sasha) 04:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey all. Please do me a huge favor and when rating Sasha, don't take into account her responses to me during our little Mass. State Police fiasco. I was completely in the wrong, a massive jerk, and was just overall stupid. Her attention to detail is second to none, please, don't judge her based on my ignorance. --Ryser915 (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Ryser915, your comments are acknowledged and appreciated. But the point is that there's no excuse for anyone resorting to incivility, even in a dispute where they turn out to be correct. Any uncivil comment can be changed into a civil comment with equivalent meaning and effectiveness. (Oftentimes, even greater effectiveness since that person may unwittingly shift the focus from their correct argument to their incivility.) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I'm pleased with the four articles I've created so far. One was Lay Down Sally an Eric Clapton song which I couldn't understand why it wouldn't have an article. The last two I made I found on the requested articles page.
  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?
    Yes. I was recently in one with Ryser915 (talk · contribs) over images in the Massachusetts State Police article. It started with me removing copyrighted images from a pop culture section, and eventually the dispute escalated to the point where I started taking out more of the images. I also had one with KennethStein (talk · contribs) back in August at DRV . He disagreed with my opinion of his notability, and eventually nominated the Lay Down Sally page for deletion. He did this to a couple of the other editors who wanted to delete his pages, and eventually was blocked for disruption.
  3. What are some examples where you think you were uncivil? (You opened the door for this ). —Wknight94 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    this edit summary, go start KennSteinpedia, bye-bye Ken stein on WP
  4. What did you find inappropriate about those images? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    The issue with the copyrighted ones is that none of them were fair use on this page. For the free pictures; Image:TroopUni.JPG is red-eyed and blurry, and too recent for the history section. Image:Trooper 2.JPG is just legs of several troopers, and didn't add any info to the rank-structure section. There were also several pictures of police cars just thrown in throughout the article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.