Wikipedia:Editor review/Insanephantom

User:Insanephantom

Insanephantom (talk · contribs) Hello everyone. I've joined Wikipedia quite some time ago, although I didn't start any serious editing until November 2006. At first, I just found pages that I'm interested in, and edited those. Later on, I became a Recent Changes patroller, mainly to revert vandalism when appropiate and occasionally helping out to edit a few more articles there. I am not considering a RfA until at least two to four months, as I still could do with a bit more experience (only about 1600 edits, at the time of posting), in my opinion, but I am constantly getting more experience as I contribute to Wikipedia, and I would like to see if there's anything else I should work on in case I leave this option open to myself later on, or any additional feedback that would make me a better contributor as a whole. (By the way, one thing I'm really worried about if I do submit a RfA later is my vandalism when I first joined, resulting in a block. I found this unjustified because a) I was using the SANDBOX to do that, originally just trying to test out page deletion templates using {{d}}, and then I wondered if it is possible to put multiple of those on. I thought nobody would care because it was the sandbox after all at that time. And b) I was given no warning at all before being blocked. I guess you can argue that I edited too many times (I made 7 edits to the Sandbox when I first joined), but surely I should at least get a warning that I shouldn't mess up the Sandbox?. Will this seriously damage my chance of success, and should I just admit it on my statement and say why I only deserved a warning and not a block?) But now, whenever I want to test things out which may annoy people even if I use the Sandbox is use preview to see what it does without saving. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 01:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

review by delldot: Hi insanephantom,

• I agree that the block was unjustified, you're not supposed to block for vandalism without providing warnings. Had no one asked you to stop at all? It's especially unjustified since you were using the sandbox and it's certainly plausible that you were just a noob who didn't know what you were doing. You say it was vandalism; were you trying to mess the page up, or were you just fooling around? I wouldn't worry too much about the block, users tend to forgive vandalism in the early days if you prove that you wouldn't do anything like that again. And in this case it's not even clear to me that it was vandalism to begin with. In any event, folks in RFAs do tend to be forgiving of old misbehavior as long as it was a long time ago and you've made it clear that you've changed your ways. I'd certainly suggest being honest and open about it in your RFA, but not dwelling on it overly. I'd say something like "In my very early days as an editor, I received a block of questionable validity for experimenting with the sandbox, I didn't mean any harm" (If that's the case) or "In my very early days as an editor, I received a block of questionable validity for vandalizing the sandbox, but I've changed and haven't done anything like that since then, and of course have no intention of vandalizing any more" (If you were vandalizing). I would be really disappointed in the RFA process if this ended up hurting your RFA much.

  Thanks for your comment here. I don't expect this to completely destroy my chances for success, but I will almost certainly get at least one or two oppose votes for this. Insanephantom (my Editor Review)

• You're still somewhat new, since you didn't start editing big time till november. I'd suggest to anyone waiting at least 6 months to submit an RFA, and because of the block, for you I'd recommend waiting 6 or 8 (though you might want to consult with someone who's more familiar with RFA and is less cautious about it). You've done a huge amount of editing in the past 2 months, so if you keep up that rate for a couple months you'll be a shoo in.
• Your number of edits is low for an RFA, but again, if you keep up this level of participation you'll be fine in a few months.
• Good job RC patrolling. Good job using appropriate warning templates.
• A look at your talk page shows that you respond well to criticism, even if it's a bit surly. Good job! I was especially impressed by how you handled this situation: friendly yet firmly sticking to the rules, and willing to discuss at length with a new user. She ends with "Thank you for explaing all to me. You are the first one who took the time to do so." Wow, really nice work!
• About your response to the note about the deletion of Woodland Crest, note that the fact that WP includes articles that are similar or worse than a given article is not an argument to keep that article. Each article must stand on its own in terms of notability, verifiability, NPOV, etc. This is probably the AFD you mentioned in your question 2.

  Thanks for the comment. That was my very first AfD I've taken part in, and since I knew the editor who created the page, it lead to my decision to vote keep, and in future AfDs, I will consider voting delete for a similar article. Insanephantom (my Editor Review)

• You'll probably find that folks in an RFA will want to see more wiki and wiki talk namespace participation, though as a percentage of your overall edits your contributions in these namespaces are pretty high.

  Okay. I'll work on those as well. Insanephantom (my Editor Review)

• I don't think you have to update the tallies on RFA's; I think they update automatically when you purge the page cache. Correct me if I'm wrong.
• Excellent edit summary usage.
• I saw no evidence of incivility, which I see as of paramount importance. I'd like to see how you handled the block situation, since that must have been stressful for you. If you avoided incivility then, you've got a really strong record. Can you provide any diffs? I didn't see anything on the june archive of Mongo's talk page.

  I don't remember posting anything on MONGO's talk page. When I was blocked though, I only posted an unblock request, which succeeded. He was probably checking the candidates for speedy deletion page, saw 'Wikipedia:Sandbox' on there, checked it, saw I made 7 edits and counted it as vandalism. I have also noticed that he was sometimes involved in disputes, and last month he was de-sysopped. Insanephantom (my Editor Review)

• From your contribs it looks like you do a lot of small changes like spelling fixes. This is great, but I'd also recommend making major changes like major article cleanups or addition of content. (If you're already doing this, sorry, it's easy to miss).
• Overall, great work. I think if you continue this level of participation for four or so more months you'll be set for an RFA. Keep it up! delldot | talk 21:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This just in: now it looks to me like you do have to update the tallies on RFA's, my bad, sorry for the bad advice. delldot | talk 16:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• I enjoy how you put a link to this in your signature. I hope you won't send me to wiki-jail if I steal the idea :-P Just H 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• That block was totally unjustified, as far as I can see-the sandbox is supposed to be for making test edits, even if out of pure simple curiosity as to what putting in a ton of something would actually look like. You didn't insert "libelous, copyrighted, or offensive material", and you were never asked or warned to stop. You're doing very well overall from what I can see, and if you were running for RfA, I wouldn't give that block a second thought. Seraphimblade 00:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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?

   At the moment, there's nothing in particular that I want to say, but I have done quite a lot of updating to 2006 Pacific typhoon season when it was a current event, when other people are not there at that time. I am also proud of my work as a vandal fighter.

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?

   Nothing major at the moment about article content. There was a AfD recently which I disagreed with, which was deleted because of non-notability, even though now I realise why it should have been deleted. But in the event of any future conflict, I will try to maintain a high level of civility.

4. On the issue of your early vandalism: why did you add 95 speedy delete tags to the sandbox? I can understand adding one, to try it out, and that being a misunderstanding, but 95? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

   As it has been pointed out, maybe it wasn't in fact vandalism. Since I was testing out, and I assumed I was allowed to do anything I like on the Sandbox (provided that it isn't 'copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content', as quoted by the Sandbox), whether I type random text (e.g. 'sjdklfsjdl' or 'blah blah', testing out templates, such as {{fact}} or as I did, {{d}}. I didn't think that anyone would care whether I chose to put any of those 1 time, 2 times, 10 times or 100 times. Of course, I won't do this again, but I'm still concerned about the possible influence on a RfA. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 14:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I did read that. Your answer explains why you felt you would be able to do it, I asked why you did it - 95 seems excessive, surely you had to paste over and over for that? What were you trying to check or do? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

   I think at that time, as a newbie, I was probably just curious about what would happen or whether that test would work or not. In that way, I was testing whether putting multiple templates in a row would work. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 01:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

5. I do recall you issuing a warning for 'vandalizing' the sandbox before. What argument can you make if you are unwilling to abide by the same rules?131.247.241.21 21:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

   Can you provide a diff for this? There are no real rules for the sandbox, it is used for testing out, except that copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content may not be added. Thanks, Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

   I remember that Insanephantom did indeed issue a warning for vandalising the sandbox, but it was because it was vandalism to the "welcome to the sandbox" bit, so in a way, the vandal wasn't really messing with the actual sandbox. His issuance of the warning was much later than when he was putting millions of deletion tags on the sandbox, he was rather new then I think. typhoonchaser 16:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)