Wikipedia:Editor review/Porchcrop (2)
Porchcrop
Questions
- What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
- Vandal fighting, welcoming newcomers, answering questions to help pages, etc.
- Have you been in any disputes 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?
- I used to, when Wikipedians were violating the Assume Good Faithguidelines. But I'm not encountering it as much now as I used to.
- I used to, when Wikipedians were violating the
Reviews
Review by PrincessofLlyr
Here are a few things I noticed about your contributions:
1. Your vandal-fighting seems good. That's very helpful to the encyclopedia.
2. I suggest you review the
3. Develop a thicker skin. I know this is hard, but you seem to have a tendency to argue with any criticism of yourself. It hurts, but you're going to do things wrong and people are going to tell you when you mess up. Say "thanks" and learn from it.
In conclusion, I do not think you are ready for adminship. That doesn't mean that you aren't a good editor - quite the contrary. Try to keep improving the things mentioned in your last RfA, be patient, and seek the advice of an experienced editor (or several!). Also, try to do some article building. The contrast between your article edits and userspace edits is staggering. Try to focus on improving articles and I think that will help in a future RfA. You can't learn policy from reading about it. Sometimes you have to go out and get your (virtual) hands dirty. Also, more edits. Most voters in an RfA are not going to be impressed by just ~2,500 edits. I hope this helps! Feel free to contact me here or on my talk page with any questions. PrincessofLlyr royal court 01:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice Princess. :) -talk|contributions) 09:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)]
Additional (Short) Review by Mono
- I'm sorry, however, you do not have enough edits to become an admin. Usually, 3000 edits are required (more is better) with article building (WP:TW, etc.) are worth about ⅛ an edit to me. Check out some criteria like User:Airplaneman/RFAand see how you stack up. I have 8,000+ edits and am not an admin, so work on more article building.
- For more info, see WP:NOTYET.
- For more info, see
- Think about WP:RFA.
- When you are criticized, think how you can impress that user. Some users are not interested in you and your mistakes (viewing them as a nuisance and even WP:VANDALISM), so try to hang around positive editors that will help you learn from your mistakes.
- Later down the road, come back to WP:ERand we'll review then.
- ), moɳo 01:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Review from Airplaneman
Also, check out User:Mono/RFA voting, as my page is deleted (I requested it - I don't use it. I'm flattered that others do :D). Airplaneman ✈ 00:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't even know I had that! moɳo 00:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's great that you are helping new users. That is a crucial part of keeping Wikipedia alive. Vandal-whacking is great too. When you're an admin, you'll be blocking them, so read up on the blocking policy!
- It's great that you are helping new users. That is a crucial part of keeping Wikipedia alive. Vandal-whacking is great too. When you're an admin, you'll be blocking them, so read up on the
- Could you create BLP policy is also a must for adminship. In short, you aren't ready for adminship quite yet. I'll try to give a more in-depth review soon (please enable the in-depth edit counter!). Airplaneman ✈ 00:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)]
- I just ran into Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Porchcrop 3. Well, I'd say listen to the opposes. They are a valuable resource. Also, your activity level should be higher if you'd like to consider adminship, IMO (make sure school comes first, though!) And why does it say "please give this user praises" on your userpage? Praise shouldn't be asked for; it should be earned. It's like saying, "Hey, look, I did something right! Reward me!" Doing good things goes without saying... I don't know how else to put it. People might see that as being immature. To respond to your RFA statement about creating Category:Editors who are not getting feedback from their good edits and used it as a backlog, and Template:Unappreciated... well... editing Wikipedia is pretty thankless. You should do it for your own enjoyment. If you don't enjoy it, this isn't the place for you.
- Oh really? Well it's correct that Wikipedia is a place to enjoy, but you are doing work on it and if you do good work, then you deserve praises, especially if you do hard work. And if you have been doing good work for years or months, then you deserve praises as well. It is unfair to not get praises when you deserve any. Not giving praises to any user that has been helpful to the project is against the talk|contributions) 00:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)]
- Yes, really. My point was that Wikipedia is a pretty thankless job. I do it for fun and self-gratification (that I have helped enrich basically the largest knowledge base on the planet — I learn, too!) barnstars and nice messages are left occasionally, but your comments make you sound like you edit for praise. This seals the deal - I don't think you're the admin type. Being an admin is even more thankless, with more people getting upset at you for your decisions. I hope you understand. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 02:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)]
- Do you have any idea why the Wikipedians are thankless, rude, and even ignore questions? It's against the talk|contributions) 04:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)]
- In general, because Wikipedians are people, and people are that way. Not that they should be, but that's the way it is here and in RL. As much as I understand your desire for praise, contributing to Wikipedia is hard and many times thankless, like most things in life. Keep working, make quality contributions, and eventually someone will notice. PrincessofLlyr royal court 17:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any idea why the Wikipedians are thankless, rude, and even ignore questions? It's against the
- Yes, really. My point was that Wikipedia is a pretty thankless job. I do it for fun and self-gratification (that I have helped enrich basically the largest knowledge base on the planet — I learn, too!)
- Oh really? Well it's correct that Wikipedia is a place to enjoy, but you are doing work on it and if you do good work, then you deserve praises, especially if you do hard work. And if you have been doing good work for years or months, then you deserve praises as well. It is unfair to not get praises when you deserve any. Not giving praises to any user that has been helpful to the project is against the
- I just ran into Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Porchcrop 3. Well, I'd say listen to the opposes. They are a valuable resource. Also, your activity level should be higher if you'd like to consider adminship, IMO (make sure school comes first, though!) And why does it say "please give this user praises" on your userpage? Praise shouldn't be asked for; it should be earned. It's like saying, "Hey, look, I did something right! Reward me!" Doing good things goes without saying... I don't know how else to put it. People might see that as being immature. To respond to your RFA statement about creating Category:Editors who are not getting feedback from their good edits and used it as a backlog, and Template:Unappreciated... well... editing Wikipedia is pretty thankless. You should do it for your own enjoyment. If you don't enjoy it, this isn't the place for you.
- Vandal fighting can be quite depressing, I have found, as it makes it look like this encyclopedia is falling apart. That's another reason to venture more into content work, which I have begun to do recently (I used to new page patrol a ton. I now do it around once a week. Same with vandal-whacking). Airplaneman ✈ 00:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)]
- Just to pick up on a couple of points Airplaneman made. a) "it looks like lots of edits are in the userspace": that isn't necessarily a bad thing (and, of course, he wasn't saying that it was unless you are just clipman 21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)]