User:Unionhawk/Admin coaching/Learning from RfA1

Obviously, my first RfA was not successful. Various issues with WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, and, arguably, DICK. Not to mention a bit of inactivity and lack of content creation.

Quoting the problems

 * "this edit summary" - Useight
 * "Linking to WP:NOCLUE isn't helpful because it mentions "stupidity" right off the bat, but yes, it's helpful to point out that people assume bad intentions much more often than it's helpful to assume bad intentions." - Dank
 * "[lack of] maturity demonstrated by this deleted edit summary" (that one was my "blp is serious fing business" stupidity) - Useight
 * "User has not made significant contributions in 6 months" - tedder
 * "It’s all about the right kind of experience and you don’t have it yet. You said I would work with deletion yet you’ve only created 4 new articles in your entire WP experience. Three of those are still stubs and one has been tagged for notability and references for a year here. Yet, you believe you are qualified to delete other editor’s work when you haven’t proven you even know how to create a quality WP article.  Frankly you've have not demonstrated through content creation that you understand how WP works and will give new editors the benefit of the doubt when judging their early creations.   An admin’s role is part of the quality improvement cycle of the encyclopedia and that role is far more encompassing than merely deleting stuff.    This may seem harsh, but I suspect you are reacting to these comments exactly the way many new editors react when their first article is nominated for deletion immediately after they’ve created it.  Sustain your passion for WP, but spend some serious time creating serious content.--Mike Cline"

And there were many others of similar nature.


 * Well, they brought up some good points. For edit summaries, I wouldn't make them longer than necessary. For example, on various talk pages I just use "re", "reply", or "reply to (username)", or give the main topic of my comment in very few words. When working on articles (as they say, you do need some more experience there), I use "expand", "+ref", or again give a one-word or few-word main idea. The purpose of an edit summary is to identify each post; if you have anything elaborate to say (I don't mean that ;-)), do so in the actual discussion. Following this will make you less likely to lash out in edit summaries. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, right. I did that for a while, but I don't know why I stopped doing that...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Plan of action
Obviously, wait 6 months and don't do anything stupid in that time. More specifically: Some tangible things to work on. And another tangible thing to work on: term paper...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Find something that I can research and get to DYK
 * 2) *Getting to DYK shows that 1) I created an article and 2) I got it past stub and into a measurable standard.
 * 3) Chop edit summaries down to just a summary
 * 4) *But don't pull a "serious fing business" in the actual discussion... Chop edit summaries, nix that kind of talk.
 * 5) Have more consistent activity
 * 6) *Because the "there aren't a lot of active admins" argument doesn't work if the candidate is inactive.
 * 7) Get RuneScape to GA (maybe)
 * 8) *Would demonstrate more content creation, ability to collaborate, not to mention a sense of accomplishment after a long while of working on that blasted article.


 * Do you subscribe to any magazines? They are excellent jumping points for new topics. For instance, AnnArbor.com was a DYK that I wrote because I read it in TIME. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)