Wikipedia:Editor review/Deskana

User:Deskana
I've been an admin for a while now, and I think I'm pretty used to it, so I'd be curious to see what other people think of me. I feel I can be a bit unconvential sometimes and I'd like some feedback on my approach to things. Deskana talk 12:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Haha, hi Deskana! Are you still drunk? Anyways...
 * Low mainspace edits. You know that. It was noted in your RFA also.

But you are right, admin should focus on admin duties. Still, I'd think it's a good idea to contribute more to mainspace when you have time (related to your university studies maybe). Showing excellent expertise in specific fields will enhance your image in dispute resolution. I'm saying this because it seems that you have been disrepected by some users (mostly trolls of course).

I think you need to avoid labelling vandals a "troll" even if it is a troll. Also, be more cautious... Like in this editor review, you made couple typos already. lol. Just minor stuff. That's about it. Cheers! AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 06:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're a good editor, mean well, and help out with admin duties. However, there's two things I'd like to see more: edit summaries for major edits (currently at 98%), and more work at WP:ANI/WP:AIV. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Review me!) 19:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You want me to improve my major edit summaries? Is that a joke? --Deskbanana 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. If you look here, you'll see you use edit summaries 98% of the time for major edits and 100% of the time for minor edits. Sorry for taking so long to reply, I didn't look back here. Cheers! Yuser31415 23:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The only times I tend not to use edit summaries (in article namespace) is when I forget. I do realise their importance. --Deskana (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 98%, 99%, 100% is the same thing. It's unnecessary to point it out unless it's below 95%. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 22:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Deskana, the feedback I would give to you I would pretty much give to any admin. You know how I feel about you (a highly respected and influential admin, who can be a bit terse and crabby).
 * Don't paint every sock with the ugly stick until you have a chance to see their edits. It could be a poor man's "right to disappear" from a formerly abusive or disruptive user. In other words, WP:AGF
 * Do some kind of main-space editing every day. Quantity doesn't matter, it's quality and necessity that counts.
 * Don't be a WP:Dick, ever. Not to anyone for any reason. Remember that you're not just an admin, you're a role model for other users.
 * Enjoy your time here. Do what makes you happy as an editor at least 95% percent of the time. Life is short and the project big.
 * When you're wrong, know it, show it, and apologize.
 * Feel the love when you get it, because it doesn't come around that often, especially for an admin.
 * That's it.Nina Odell 18:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd be better if you didn't say things like "So if you've quite finished getting your kicks out of warning experienced administrators" to people. it makes you sound rather pompous I'm afraid.Lolocaust 21:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Says the vandal. --Deskana (For Great Justice!)  22:55, 7 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?
 * Answer: Regrettably due to university work and other things, I don't actually seem to get any time to contribute to articles. However, as an admin, I can make contributions to the encyclopedia in a more indirect manner, by blocking vandals and trolls to let other editors edit easier, free from trolls and vandalism.
 * 1) 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?
 * Answer: Far, far too many. It's a seemingly necessary part of being an admin. I couldn't possibly list all the users who have ranted at me after I blocked them (some of them were understandably confused, some of them were just trolling). I had a major (by major I mean MAJOR) conflict with a user called User:Robsteadman (and User:Robertsteadman after that), but that's a long time ago. Calling him a "troll" wouldn't be fair, but he certainly wasn't that far off sometimes. I'm sure if you examine the list of blocks I've handed out you can find a few prominent disagreements.
 * Answer: Far, far too many. It's a seemingly necessary part of being an admin. I couldn't possibly list all the users who have ranted at me after I blocked them (some of them were understandably confused, some of them were just trolling). I had a major (by major I mean MAJOR) conflict with a user called User:Robsteadman (and User:Robertsteadman after that), but that's a long time ago. Calling him a "troll" wouldn't be fair, but he certainly wasn't that far off sometimes. I'm sure if you examine the list of blocks I've handed out you can find a few prominent disagreements.