Wikipedia:Editor review/Panyd

Panyd

Panyd (talk · contribs · count) Hi there! I'm hoping to run for RfA again in the near future and I'd really like to know the following; Where are my strong points? Where are my weak point? What could I improve on? How can I be more helpful on-wiki? I have my own ideas about the answers to those questions but any community feedback I could get would be much appreciated.Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
Article-wise I'm most proud of Andrew Green (ghost hunter), I think it's the best DYK I've done. Otherwise I'm proud of my high rate of success at CSD and my long-standing habit of going into AfDs which are savable (or sometimes not) and adding referencing and rewriting sections, or sometimes even the whole thing, meaning that the article gets kept/merged. For a recent example of that see Ouija Board Criticism. My primary contributions range from vandal hunting to image uploading on behalf of OTRS. It's very very varied work but I am a wikignome at heart so a lot of it will be working on backlogs of one sort or another. Even if it's just lending a hand for the day
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.
I have had disputes about the way people have handled themselves at RfA (see SandyGeorgia's talk page for the most recent one) but I've never had any disputes which escalated past amicable conversations about a disagreement. I don't think there's any need for a dispute to ever go past that point and I honestly believe that if you treat people in a calm and open manner they will do the same to you. Of course that's not always true but I've yet to find the exception on WP.

Reviews

Review by User:VictorianMutant:

I'm going to (once again) disregard the usual format I use to do editor reviews since this seems to be an Rfa-centric request for an editor review. I think you are definitely a net-positive to the project, you have a lot of potential, and could definitely be an asset to the admin team someday. But you have a few things to overcome and patience is something you'll have to have... A few specific things:

In your first Rfa, there were a few opposes because of a userbox on your userpage. Personally, I think opposing for that reason alone was silly, but the fact remains that you did put it there and you're always going to have those who oppose for that reason. Now the userbox is gone, but if you go through another Rfa, you will probably have those who will see the removal as trying to "hide" your condition. Sometimes, it's best not to let others know too much about your own shortcomings, but you already let the cat out of the bag and must deal with that. I don't know if it's better to put it back on your userpage now or not... but it will surely be brought up which means you need to be more careful with your edits than the average user might have to.
I think you have a well-rounded experience in Wikipedia in many ways, but it seems kind of shallow in many areas. You have a history of creating a lot of articles- some good & some bad, and have a few DYK's to your credit, but haven't really brought any articles anywhere near GA status. That in itself might not be so bad in itself... some people are good at creating articles, while others focus on bringing it to the next level. The article which you have contributed to most, Ivan Samylovsky does puzzle me. You made 62 edits to the article and then dropped it in this condition with ^{[citation needed]} tags everwhere, no inline citations, and redlinks. Others have since improved the article, but if you're going to make that many edits to an article, you might as well try to help bring it to the next level or at least leave the article in a condition where someone else can do so with little work. Your first edit to the article has: We will expand, we will grow, we will get DYK as the edit summary... I won't go as far as some others do, but it is creating articles for the purpose of taking them to DYK and then dropping them like a hot potato in a poor state which causes many users to have contempt for the entire DYK process.
You stated in your last Rfa that you would contribute as an admin in the areas of CSD's & AfD's. IMHO, an admin who wants to participate in those areas has to have good knowledge of WP:CITE. You seem to lack a full understanding of citations. The Ivan Samylovsky is a glaring indication of that. Another is this edit which perhaps "works", but isn't really proper citation. On the discussion at User:SandyGeorgia's page you admitted you used sources which you thought were reliable. If I create an article and it is "on the deletion bubble", I want an admin who knows the difference between a good source and one which might not be reliable.
I find some things in your editing history strange. Your first edit ever was to your monobook.js page which seems like a strange newbie edit. You then made one more edit and then didn't edit under that account for more than a year. You may have to explain whether your history to this project is more than your current account at an Rfa.

Specific recommendations:

Forget about Rfa for now. You seem to have a keen interest in DYK's- so create an article and get it listed there. But don't stop there... take it to peer review and try to get it up to at least GA status. That will help you get experience with citations and other areas which you need to work on. It will take a lot of work, but you'll have people helping you (I have found the people at peer review very helpful). Once you get that first GA, no one can say that you aren't serious about content creation.
Try to get up to 10,000 edits because that seems to be where the "minimum" for Rfa seems to be now. And try to get your % of edits to articles above 50%.
You seem to be a good vandal fighter... keep up the good work. You are a fine editor who, I'm sure will be an admin someday soon, but be patient. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 18:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:LuckyLouie:

Concur with User:VictorianMutant, you have a record of positive contributions and seem to have the good of the project in mind. I especially appreciate your cheerful help with finding RS sources for articles that suffered from lack of same, such as Ouija Board Criticism and Jack Sarfatti. The only slight criticism I have is that you may be occasionally sacrificing accuracy for speed. A couple of times I noticed your source material was cited inaccurately and your interpretations of source material were occasionally somewhat eccentric or grammatically garbled. This is a small criticism. The inaccuracies I mentioned were probably due to your being in a rush. However as an admin you will likely be called upon to judge the quality of sources and if they are being interpreted accurately. You might want to hone your skills by writing articles and bringing them to GA status with the help of other experienced editors. After 4 years here, I'm still learning. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]