Wikipedia:Editor review/MBisanz

Mbisanz

Mbisanz (talk · contribs) So I've been on Wikipedia for a bit of time now. I've become more involved using AWB to improve existing article quality. I'm planning to get more involved in article creation, but I find it difficult to translate information from outside sources into a flowing article. Mbisanz (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

I have interacted with this user before, and think that this user's work is very valuable. I don't see any problems. Academic Challenger (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at your edits and talk page comments that you've made over the last couple of weeks, and have to say that I am very impressed. (I did not dig too deep into the past, only at what you're currently up to). Your talk and user page have been on my watchlist, and each time it has "bumped to the top", I've dived in to see what others' were saying to you, and what you were replying. I've checked out your contribs and have to also say that, by and large, you do a terrific job of saying what you mean in a polite and direct way. You are to the point, sincere, and very willing to help out other editors when they need it (user:DonnPulley for example). You also know how to get help when you need it, and you seem, from your contribs, to take others' advice sincerely and act on the advice. You are quick to apologize when shown errors, quick to say "that's OK" when other's err towards you, and you seem to be well grounded in this endeavor of creating an encyclopedia. Kudos to you, you are a fine editor. "I hope you like the place and decide to stay". I have asked you one question below, please feel free to answer as/when you please! Thanks Mbisanz! ;-p Keeper | 76 22:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumped on 2 articles tonight while 2 different users were just starting the pages. Articles: Royal York Road and Muayyed Nureddin. Both users commented to Mbisanz and to each other about this behavior. Zealous - yes. Well received - No. Mbisanz made some moves to rectify the situations afterward. Would have appreciated better foresight and manners. Fremte (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's conduct continues without discussion. The user may be knowledgeable but specific conduct when jumping on an article is highly annoying and I can't see being well-received by others; it is frankly annoying and irritating. If it is decided to accept this person as an editor, extensive coaching is required on the basis of a series of wikipedia interactions with this person. Fremte (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (signed on 11 Jan 2008, original comment was 10 Jan)[reply]

I decided to take a look at Mbisanz's list of contributions after my rather negative experience of his/her intrusive and biting labelling etc of an article I was just starting, and the parallel experience of another user. Most of the recent edits are non-contributions, rather minor edits,tags and typos. I noted in the questions below, the response to #3 includes some discussion of a month ago of nor reading the talk page or looking at the user's contributions before embarking on some intervention with the article. The user does not appear to have learned this yet. I don't mind editting nor contributions, but this user lacks tact and will alienate others. My experiences with this user have been uniformly negative in this set of interactions. I realize I have made several entries to this page, but they are important points if this person is loosed on Wikipedia with some authority. Fremte (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comments above seem related to a dispute over one extremely difficult article with one other editor, and I see no evidence of and other significant problems of this sort. . DGG (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I'm probably most pleased with spelling corrections I've done through AWB. As far as article contributions, I'd say the work I've done on Hofstra University is my best. To quote another editor, I see myself as a better re-writer than writer. One area I already know I need to work on is using the Preview option more to prevent extraneous edits.
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?
Yes, I disagreed with the creation of individual album articles for a group I thought was un-notable. But after another editor showed me that there was no other way to list the information, I agreed. I prefer to avoid conflicts over minor issues, since they tend to get in the way of improving an ancyclopedia. Of course, if there was a major issue I was invovled in, I wouldn't hesitate to bring it to RFC or Mediation.
Before labelling SimLeague Baseball with {{db-spam}}, did you look at the contributions history or talk page of the editor (User:Metsguy234) who created that page, or consider discussing the article with that author before tagging the article? What do you think was the reason for Metsguy234 creating that page, and how would you find out if you don't know? Carcharoth (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at the creator's contributions or talk page before labelling it spam mainly because the article seemed like obvious spam (included the MSRP price of the game and random formatting). I think the reason he created the article is either he enjoyed playing it and wanted it on wikipedia or he worked for the company that creates the game and saw an opportunity for free advertising.

Looking at the talk page now, I see there was an issue with us biting a new (to en-pedia) user which is indeed unfortunate. I'm not sure if in this case a warning tag about speedying SimLeague would have made things worse or better. Probably better for me to be consistent and use the warning tags in all cases.

As a normal method, I look at the article content more than considering who wrote it since even an established editor can make judgement mistakes and create a non-notable/spam article (i'm guilty of that). This is something I probably should work on to avoid biting new users. Thanks for the question and any advice you can give me. Mbisanz (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. I'm pleased you picked up on the biting issues. I would recommend discussing with article authors in future, in an attempt to educate if nothing more. In my opinion, a talk page message (not a talk page tag) is preferable to a speedy deletion notice suddenly appearing on the article. Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do tend to find talk pages tags a bit impersonal, but with some anon. IPs, tags are probably the more consistent way to go, I'll try to make sure I leave some sort of pointer in the future. Happy editing. Mbisanz (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the edit count tools, you made a handful of edits in 2005, virtually no edits in 2006 and most of 2007, then literally burst on the scene with ever increasing numbers since August of this year. What changed? Also, in a related question, you've been quite explicit about "wanting to become an admin" (according to the userbox on your userpage anyway). Do you think it will/should be an issue that, although your account is over 2 years old, you've really only been editing significantly for about 3-4 months? Thanks! Keeper | 76 22:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All fair questions, lets see if I can answer them.

I registered back in 2005 just because it looked interesting, then I got busy with college, and recently, in grad schools I've had the free time to start editing. Most of my edits have been minor typos using AWBs, just because I think thats an under-performed function what with editors being busy adding content and sources, and admins dealing with content-disputes and problem users.

Yes, I have wanted to be admin, for a couple reasons. What really drew me to be active again was the extremely long backlogs. Now I'm not that great at content writing and such, but I think the 4-5 day backlog at AfD really could use some more admins. When you think that in a given day , there are upwards of 100-150 articles up for deletion, it really becomes a lengthy task for an admin to interpret and close more than a handful.

Also, I've noticed that some areas of en-pedia could maybe use a closer eye from admins. For instance, I think WP:COIN could probably use more scrutiny as could Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help/Help Desk.

Further, being a grad student, I keep odd hours. As this diff points out [1] at certain times, there really aren't a lot of admins around to deal with blocks, attack pages, etc. I think thats something I might be able to help with given the times at which I am available to edit.

As to the account age, I've been active now about 4 months, assuming my admin coach agrees, I'm thinking a March or April RFA. that means I'll have been around 7-8 months as an active editor. From what I can tell User:WJBscribe was around only 11 months before getting the crat hat, so I think 7 months should be enough history to let users judge whether or not I should be trusted with the mop.

Also, I want to get some more content creation under my belt before going up for RFA. I just last week realized there is a lack of articles on many of the old churches in my area. So I've started adding those. Also, I have an article in my user space that I've been working on and off for a couple months that I think could get to GA-level. Those are things I'd want "done" before RFA.

Hope that answers your questions, feel free to add more. Mbisanz (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]