Wikipedia:Editor review/Triplestop

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Triplestop

Triplestop (talk · contribs · count) Hello everyone, I would like to become an admin someday and I just wanted everyone's input on how I am doing so far. Triplestop (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

i found you a bit too quick on the button in simply blocking my update of a dead link on a page i initiated (living computers theory) to a live one. maybe the new link does indeed violate some rule or other (because its a .pdf file?) but you would be more useful if you assisted novice wikiauthors like me with some constructive advice instead of just being a hachet (wo)man. triplestop indeed!!! :) - djhbrown

Hello, I reverted your link because you were adding a link to what appeared to be your own website. This is considered a big no-no. If you need any help you are always welcome to ask. Triplestop x3 01:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if my questions below seemed a bit pointy. Looking through your contributions, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly wrong going on, and it's certainly helpful to have people doing new pages patrolling. The sort of nagging doubt I have is that you have very quickly found your ways to the red tape areas of wikipedia. If you are keen on becoming an admin, I'm pretty sure there will be a few issues: one is that you haven't been here all that long (some people seem to work on 6 months minimum, others a year); secondly, you do not appear to have made any edits to articles that are not tagging or reverting of vandalism. This is all useful work, but there is generally a feeling that admins should be involved in editing as well as doing the mopping. It helps to have experience of the difficulties faced while editing, as admins often have to deal in areas of edit conflict; lastly, by the way you have leapt into the areas you are working on, it feels like to me you are not a user with only 3 weeks on board. If you were to go for adminship I would have doubts over whether you had edited under a different username, hence the question below.

My advice, for what it's worth, is to try and expand your involvement more into the editing side. When patrolling new pages, how about seeing if there are articles you can improve, by cleaning up text or adding sources etc. Quantpole (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for your review, I will certainly try to expand my editing. Triplestop (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far, your G11 tagging has been very good every time I've seen it. I notice some feedback on your talk page that I think was correct, but I think you're doing a good job of taking new information on board when you get it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I will certainly try to take all constructive criticisms. Triplestop x3 21:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your rush to nominate the article Catholic University Law Review for deletion on its first day of existence without doing any independent research or editing is not characteristic of an admin. The article has since been nominated for keeping by an admin, who verified the Law Review's notability. Don't bite the newcomer! Stout1070 (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was because it appeared to be a promotional page with no real assertion of notability. However if others think it is notable than that is fine. Triplestop x3 22:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An Impact Factor was included in the info box, as well as a credible ranking (with reference). Others do not merely think it is notable- they have verified it. Point being, your conduct is not that of an admin. 192.111.222.190 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly an editor in COI and that article would have caught the attention of anyone. Spammers are routinely blocked for this, see WP:UAA. Self promotion is a big no-no here and that is why your page was flagged for deletion. Triplestop x3 15:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his contributions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide, I'm not impressed and would certainly oppose any RFA for this editor. I'm particularly dismayed by how he's sought to insert numerous additional "summary" comments, and cautions to the closing admin about others biases, at the top of the discussion, if to ensure that his comments receive priority -- rather than in the flow of discussion, as should be the case. He's also engaged in rather unnecessarily personalized exchanges with editors who oppose his AfD. Not admin material, at this point, anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a more holistic review. To be honest, I'm trying to forget about that AfD right now. Triplestop x3 16:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I definitely think you should back off and cool it it on this AfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to get too carried away, it's just that I thought this article was a blatant attack from a banned troll and got frustrated when they wanted to keep it anyway. Triplestop x3 17:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but "they" are not banned trolls. '"They" are the Wikipedian community at large, who you have invited to a discussion on whether to delete or retain. I think one needs to keep one's cool and respect right of others to disagree, especially when it's not going your way. That's all I've got to say and I will let you have the last word, if you wish. bye, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do an excellent job spam-fighting. We need more editors like you in this field. Also, good job working to uphold our username policy. I really can't find any reason to oppose you in an RfA, except I think you should elaborate on the questions asked below, especially numbers two and four. Them From Space 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see you answer Question 3 below (about previous account(s)), and I wish you would create a userpage. Neither of these things is necessary to be a good editor or even to run RfA, but they will help people trust you. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
Speedy deletion and other cleanup areas.
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?
Not at all.
Have you ever edited under a different username? Quantpole (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have had prior accounts however they were used for minor stuff like correcting typos and I never actually got around to any actual editing then. I have never been blocked or anything but I can't remember my old username. Only until recently was I fascinated with the intricacies and inner workings of Wikipedia and started actual editing.
Is there any particular reason you want to be an admin? Quantpole (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reason in particular. I just want to help out. Triplestop (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you become an admin, will you block first-time vandals for making joke submissions at AfC? --Anonymous 12:28, 9-27-09
Hmm, it does not appear that you are a new editor. Please find something productive to do. Edits like this are pretty blatant and repeated vandalism will result in a block for you. Triplestop x3 17:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.