Wikipedia:Editor review/Steve Crossin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Steve Crossin 1.1 Review by EJF (talk · contribs) 1.2 Review by dihydrogen monoxide 1.3 Comments by User:Filll

[edit] Steve Crossin

Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) Well, I've been on Wikipedia for about 2 and a half months, and I feel in that time, I've managed to do a lot. I contribute quite a lot to the 24 Wikiproject, which I recently resurrected, and I'm actively co-ordinating the efforts to re-write articles and fair use rationales for our images. I also help out at the Mediation Cabal, and I look over AIV quite a bit. I also have done some template work. I feel it's time for outside opinion as to how I am going on Wikipedia, and the areas I can improve in. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 00:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

[edit] Review by EJF (talk · contribs)

• Hello Steve and thanks for submitting an editor review!
• Civility - Firstly, I must say that in your short tenure at Wikipedia you have involved yourself in many things! Despite this, you do not appear to be overstretched and you are a civil, kind and calm editor.
• Adopting - I see that you have adopted RyRy5. It's fantastic that you are helping this editor being more involved "proper" editing. Your adoption is appearing to be successful and you have also have a special wiki for it. You are giving him sound advice and running a good adoption program.
• Mediation - The fact you are involved in mediation is a big plus. This shows other editors that you are good at dealing with disputes, as if you become an admin this experience will help you when dealing with disputatious editors. I am not aware of the full details of the case(s) but you are appear to be working effectively and I do not see any major complaints.
• AIV - You have made many successful reports here. You also have taken a large clerking role. Your comments show you have the clue to successful block (or not) vandals. I listened to your comments on WP:NTWW and agree that many editors are warning and reporting "vandalism" that are good-faith tests. I like your involvement at WT:AIV, where you have made good contributions to discussions. And well done for helping in the creation of templates to speed up the role of administrators when checking reports!
• SSP - Good work here, no complaints. Your contributions here are insightful and discerning. Keep it up!
• XfD - You have made some comments in AfD, and all appear to have mirrored the eventual outcome. I do however note that most of your comments have been "delete". This is not a large problem as you have provided good rationales at all times and you understand the deletion policy. However, some users do not like an editor's comments to have been almost always "delete" as this suggests (to them) that an editor is too keen to delete other editors' work. Perhaps you can look through some AfDs and find some articles to fix so that they can be kept? Often notable people, places and things are nominated, and if you can provide multiple sources to refute the nomination this is considered a worthy task. Also, you should perhaps consider diversifying into WP:MfD, WP:RfD etc. Deletion today is a useful resource to keep track of current deletion debates.
• CSD - You have successfully tagged some pages here. Continue doing this, as this shows your understanding of the speedy criteria.
• Article-writing - You have done good work, particularly to Martha Logan. Try your best to get some DYKs and perhaps a good article or two. Your WikiProject (good work there!) has I'm sure a few articles for improvement.
• And finally... - I remember commenting to you at the start of March on my talk page that I looked forward to supporting your RfA in the future. I still do, and believe that you will be a benefit to Wikipedia if sysopped. I note that you are being coached by MBisanz and I'm sure he will guide you well. As above, you are a great editor and hope to see you continue your outstanding work. Best regards, EJF (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm no longer being coached by MBisanz. Per discussion with him, he felt that he had done all he could for me, and additionally, he now has another admin coachee, Addshore. My admin coach at the moment is Riana, however recently, I've stated I will wait some time before I go for an RFA, perhaps even till January. I'm not really sure when at the moment. I'm sure Riana will teach me well. Thanks a lot for your review has been most helpful, and I will take it on board. And additionally thanks for being the first one to review me. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, my mistake. She's a well-respected admin and good luck! Not a problem doing the review, I'm glad you found it useful. Whenever you go for it, be it this year or next, you can expect my strong support. You are a benefit to the project. Cheers, EJF (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by dihydrogen monoxide

Your enthusiasm is excellent and should be applauded—there is no question of that. You've gotten involved in quite a few areas, which looks good. So yeah, looking at edit counts and page titles, it looks good on paper.

Now, a few things I have found. First of all, I would suggest you slow down a fair bit. For instance, look at the response to you here (perma)—wait a bit longer, and you'll be able to make much more productive/insightful comments. In another case, see this—if you had slowed down a bit before creating, it might not have gone to deletion (as it might not have been created)...it's little things like this that you can work on.

Incidentally, comments such as "I co-ordinate the 24 Wikiproject" are sometimes frowned upon. Look at the comments here (re this), for instance. Just be careful, that's all.

Most of our interactions are on IRC, which is obviously unlogged and off-wiki. Without your permission, I won't comment on anything related to that. On that note, be careful when citing off-wiki stuff like you did here, as it can easily be taken the wrong way.

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Comments from iMatthew I'd just like to say that you're adoption program is excellent. It really seems to work, and help users get back on track and ready for the next step in their wiki-careers. iMatthew 2008 10:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have to give credit to User:Tiptoety and User:Hersfold, as it's actually their original idea. I made some changes to it, yes, but I wanted to just point this out. Cheers. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 11:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• 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?

   Article wise, the changes, with the help of Durova and Saranghae honey, we took the article Martha Logan from this to this, all in a matter of 20 days. The article went from nearly being merged to a B class article, possibly a future GA. In other areas, the template I've gone and made with the help of Luna Santin, {{AIV}}, I feel, has been rather useful to administrators and people monitoring AIV. I'd also say my contributions to the 24 Wikiproject have been a step in the right direction for the 24 articles. And I'm happy with my efforts at mediation, such as on Talk:Ming Dynasty, and in Medcab.

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?

   Just the one, with an editor regarding 24 articles. This was a conflict early on in my time on Wikipedia, it caused me a smal amount of stress. My real issue was that I had little understanding of Wikipedia policy, and I was a bit uncivil towards her. Since then, I have resolved that dispute by making a truce with her, and now, it's my way of doing things to always be civil, and to comment on content, rather than the contributor, something I insist on in my mediation cases.

[edit] Comments by User:Filll

I have never been involved in an editor review before, so I apologize if I am doing this incorrectly. I am very impressed at how much Steve Crossin has become involved with in such a short time on WP. At 2 or 3 months, he is a lot farther along than I was at the 2 or 3 month mark. I think it is great he is working as a mediator.

One thing gives me pause is that I do not think Steve has really dug in deep on a controversy himself yet. I have noticed that many editors have limited experience on controversial articles, and could benefit from more exposure. The way I judge serious experience on a controversial article is to be involved in the dispute, not just as a mediator, and have racked up at least 400 or 500 edits to the talk page of a controversial article, defending some position or other. To help gain more insight into controversial article editing, I would suggest Steve try the AGF Challenge exercises. The first 8 exercises are available for essay answer and multiple choice answers. Soon, the 2nd batch of 8 exercises will be released for consideration.--Filll (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)