Wikipedia:Editor review/Royalguard11

Royalguard11 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) I have decided that after being here for over 13 months, actively for 5, that I should probably get some community feedback on what I'm doing. I spend my wikitime at several different locals.

I really started with Special:CrossNameSpaceLinks, when I started removing signatures from little known articles. Lots of grunt work. I also work at WP:UBM, and can remember when it was WP:TGS. I have my own userbox archive in my userspace, with over 40 boxes. I do occasionally patrol for vandalism when I've got lots of time. I'm one of those unfortunate Mac people, so I use old fashion popups and the the vandalism irc channel to patrol. About a month ago, I joined the Association of Member's Advocates. I am often working on a case (or three), and I also help Martinp23 with the AMA's irc channel. I also help in bootcamp with new users, and help them with wiki-oriented tasks. I also answer {helpme} tags.

As kind of a final thought, I also tried to pile my experience from userboxes into an essay on userbox personalities. I have hoped that maybe it will help us all understand each other's point so view. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

You for some reason decided to delete the Biography I was compiling about the foodwriter Michelé Gentille. You are nothing more than a saboteur or a Nazi. What gives you the right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wickerbrainpan (talk • contribs) 18:53, December 23, 2006.

• Hello there, Royalguard11, how are you doing? Here is my review, I hope you find it useful.

  • Mathbot reports 100% usage for both major and minor edits. Excellent! I like the fact that your edit summary includes the warning level when applying them to users, that is extremely useful because it allows both knowing how many warnings you have applied, and while reviewing the history of their talk pages, to know how many times they had been warned. I don't recall everyone with popups using that, as far as I remember.
  • Out of your almost 6,900 edits, almost 2,200 were made in articles, and another 2,600 in your user namespace. I admit I was pretty shocked when seeing those numbers for the first time, but then I remembered what you said about userfying userboxes, and a quick search confirmed that the high amount of user edits are because every of those boxes had their own history. Nice to know you did not spend 2,600 edits trying to get your userpage format :-) Almost a sixth of your edits are done in user talk pages, which is pretty good. For me it means two things: you contact other users through their pages when dealing with certain problems, and that you warn users when they are behaving incorrectly. However, you only have 140 edits in article talk pages, which may indicate that you don't discuss changes or improvements in articles.
  • Regarding Saskatoon City Council, note that the article is "temporal", that is, in 3 years different people will be there, which would force a full article modification. How are you going to handle new elections? Moving the article to, in example, Saskatoon City Council, 2006? Or create an entry for every year in the article? And Newfoundland referendums, 1948 is pretty clear, good work with that one. With some styling, and expanding a bit more about the public considerations (whether the township was surprised by the result, campaigns, controversies, etc), the article could achieve the good article status.
  • As a user who spends quite a lot between new ones, I really appreciate the effort members of the different conflict resolution projects put in their task, especially when protecting new users from our overwhelming community.
  • An interesting small conflict appeared when you tagged contributions of an ip as nonsense. After he explained about {{weasel}}, you quickly apologized. From here I make two conclusions: you recognize your own mistakes, and are willing to amend them, and that you don't edit articles as much as one would hope.

  Personally, I believe you are doing a great job here. Constantly reverting vandalism (and almost as important, warning users with appropriate templates) is extremely useful. I would only suggest to focus a bit more in discussing with other users about how to improve articles. Also, you may consider checking Wikipedia:Peer review and Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, as you will be able to read some constructive criticism about articles that may help you in the future when reviewing articles. You can review some of the templates for articles at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. I see you are most likely a WikiGnome, just like me, and the fact that you do patrolling through IRC could be used as an advantage for other editors. That is, when you revert and warn a user, spend a second more in the article you just reverted, checking if it needs something, or if it is biased, unsourced, or need some cleaning. Since you have (most likely) arrived there by chance, you are in a unique position of giving neutral non-biased feedback to the article. By tagging the article with one of the article templates (maybe even adding a note in the article talk page about why you had added the tag), you will be not only keeping their article clean from vandalism, but also telling the editors of the article which areas it should be improved. Just a suggestion. It is as important to be a good reverted as to give feedback for articles. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't offer a thorough review, as I have not looked into multiple actions of this user, but I can link to a current discussion on Royalguard11's talk page that seems to be relevant. It is just about one action, so may not give a complete representation of the user's behaviour, but it is at least relevant. User talk:Royalguard11#Jenna Jameson myspace link. The discussion is about this action (the user's sole contribution to that article), and my reversion (out of multiple contribs). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess that was a one-off explosion, the rest of the conversation got much better. Carry on! AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mate, what can I say - you do an excellent job with the mop and bucket and as a normal editor too. I also really appreciate that you keep on caring for WP:TGS WP:GUS WP:UBM, on my side real life has got me in its nasty maw. You're doing a real good job, man. Keep it up :) CharonX/talk 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello there, sorry to have to give a negative review. But I'm deeply disturbed by the way you closed this AfD. There were three votes for keep and three votes for delete, an even split. While I know simple counts of votes is not the be all and end all of AfD, you shouldn't close an AfD with delete so carelessly when there is not a clear majority for deletion (and even worse, you gave no other commentary than the simple word delete! Not even in the edit summaries of either AfD or the page as it was deleted). Mathmo ^Talk 07:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, thought I'd give an update on it. From which I've been generally impressed with this editors action since then. Not just the undeleting of it, but the trouble and nonsense which arouse from it being kept. That you had absolutely nothing to do with making that silly fuss, and you responded to it in a very civil manner. Mathmo ^Talk 11:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Slavish process dedication is a failing. WP:IAR is the most important rule we have. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree at all with Hipocrite on IAR(often people will use it as an excuse to do whatever they want, whenever they want), but I concur that I can't give a positive review after this edit[1]. I initially took it as veiled hostility before calming down and realizing that you were just trying to convey something neutrally, to which I still haven't figured out yet. Just H 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I think your userbox essay is a little simplistic(and that part sucking up to Jimbo at the bottom totally devalidates it for me), but I appreciate coming back and helping rectify the confusion. Just H 04:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   Answer: I have written or helped write about 40 different articles, which I document on my user page. The one's I'm most proud of are Newfoundland referendums, 1948, because of all the word I put into it, and Saskatoon City Council, which I'm hoping to expand on the councilors in the near future. And of corse there's the userbox personalities essay.

3. 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?

   Answer: I've been in a few vandal related ones, vandals keep hitting pages, and I keep reverting them, they vandalize my userpage, ect. I was in a big talking match with a user over WP:UM, but I believe we've cleared that up now. The only real big one was with the recent massive deletion of userfied userboxes, and trying to find out why. My way of dealing with conflict is to ask questions, why is it happening. I'm not a person that will go "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong". Wikipedia is built on consensus, and I respect that.

Royalguard11 thought it was necessary to delete a small contribution I made to the Saskatoon page. I did nothing wrong but added a nickname some people use for the city. I demand an explanation. This is not excusable