Wikipedia:Editor review/Doonhamer

Doonhamer
Hi all. I've been registered for two years but only started editing seriously the past year or so. Started by wikignoming, then started editing articles of interest to me, and then most recently becoming more active in vandal and spam patrolling. I've tried to learn by observation and imitation the WP way, but have received almost no feedback, so thought I'd solicit some. Thanks! Doonhamer (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Review by delldot: I know what you mean about getting no feedback, it's like that for a lot of good users, especially if you edit in an obscure area and aren't pissing people off too much. It probably means that you're doing OK, or at least that if you are messing up, you're doing it in small enough ways that no one considers it worthwhile to tell you about it. That's what ER is good for though, so I'll be sure to point out anything I see, however small.


 * I see vandalism reverting, accompanied by proper warnings. This is good. I see a ton of copyediting, which is excellent.  I see you're a professional writer, it's always great to get the pros.  Have you considered joining the LoCE (if you haven't already)?


 * Lemme get this straight: You enjoy finding sources? That's awesome, one of the most needed things on the project (as you probably know).


 * I think it's great that you stuck with it to get KC Stadium up to GA. You were very diligent in responding to the issues that needed fixing (and, indeed, fixing them!).  Any thoughts on FA?


 * Interactions with other users - Counting to ten, as you mention in Q2, is a very useful ability, one that a lot of WP users apparently lack. It's a great characteristic to be able to carry out your actions deliberately.  I see from your talk page that you apologize and are friendly when someone comes to you about a misunderstanding, another great trait.


 * I don't know that I would have removed this. So what if the assertion's false?  This page is for advice to you.  If you don't think it has merit, you can ignore it.  Better, you can ask the user for clarification.  Unless you know from previous interaction that the user's solely trying to push your buttons and create drama, in which case I'd advocate for ignoring it entirely or, as you did, removing it quietly if you think it'll cause a fuss from others.  I saw nothing on their talk page to make me firmly conclude that they were a troll, so I'd recommend giving them the benefit of the doubt.  I also thought the comment you left them about it was unfair.  You came here and asked for feedback.  They gave some.  There's no requirement about how much detail or evidence to provide, though more is of course better. They did it in the wrong section, but that doesn't really cause any harm and just suggests that they're new and don't know any better.  Don't get mad at them, assume that they're really trying to help and ask them for clarification.  (If you know the context that they wrote this in, as it looks like in this case, you can decide for yourself whether the criticism is valid or whether to ignore it).  If you respond harshly to criticism, people are going to be more afraid to approach you with it in the future, and that will end up costing you.  I can't tell from your talk page whether this was an isolated incident or whether you really need to work on accepting criticism, since you've received so little (a good sign!).  It certainly looks like you're willing to accept article writing advice, so maybe this one thing was just a troublemaker that you'd already had conflict with.


 * I would avoid using the word 'vanity'; people don't usually realize that's what they're doing, even when it's obvious to everyone else. I think you could have preempted the unpleasantness with this user by leaving a friendly note on their talk page about why you reverted them, right after doing it.  Greeting and welcoming them, thanking them for their contributions, and explaining why that particular edit had to be removed (which you did a good job of), and then, if possible, ending on a positive note. Try to find something that they did right to praise them for.  Does that seem insincere?  I think we should be actively trying to notice the good things people do, since, as you've noticed, you can do a lot of really excellent work without hearing a thing about it.  In this case it might also have been worth the extra effort of not using the automated tool to revert, since it was a good faith edit, and using the tool can be more insulting (though it's really good that you did leave an extra summary).  You may have been totally in the right here, but I think it's worth bending over backward to be welcoming to the new users.  Us old-timers can take a lot of crap, but newbies really have no reason to stick around if they're not treated kindly at first.  And even if they're screwing up at the moment, they could become valued contributors in time.  I wrote an article about a group I had cofounded when I first joined (and I like to think of myself as 'valued' now ;]).  I don't mean to be overly critical here, these were the only two incidents I saw, and every other interaction was very friendly  (I read your whole talk page).  So this is just me putting it out there, it's up to you to evaluate whether it's at all relevant and whether you should take the advice or ignore it.


 * Familiarity with policy - I saw from some of your posts that you were citing policy correctly, so it looks like you've got a good grasp.


 * Thoughts on RFA - Your very low level of participation in WP and WT areas will probably prevent you from passing RfA, as well as your low edit count in general. I hope this isn't on your mind, because IMO you'll be more of an asset to the project by continuing to do the great article work than by pumping up your counts.


 * Overall contribution - Excellent work on your GA and other article contributions! Your article writing contributions, I would say, is your strongest trait as an editor here.  I don't know whether it's a pattern or just a couple isolated incidents I saw, but it's possible that you need to be more kind and welcoming to newcomers. Your answers to the questions kind of alluded to having learned from these experiences, in which case all the preaching I did in this ER was unnecessary and I'm sorry you had to sit through it :P  Sorry to focus on the negative, I think you're doing an awesome job.   delldot   talk  21:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already, please add this review to Editor review/Archives to save work for those who maintain this page. If this is enough of a review for you (and I doubt you're going to get more), please also remove the page from WP:ER.

 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?
 * I'm pleased with helping to get KC Stadium to GA status; I'm also happy to have created Hull Maritime Museum and have a fact from it featured in the Did you know...? section on the main page. The former article was poorly sourced and in need of copyediting, two WP tasks I enjoy doing. It was also a great exercise in collaborating with other editors. The latter article was a great learning experience; I tried to make the article as good as I could before publishing it, and was happy to see it survive its first day intact.
 * 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?
 * I've been very fortunate not to have any major conflicts with other editors. There have been one or two times when I've had to count to ten before responding on an article's talk page (Bottle-kicking and Kingston upon Hull come to mind), but the great majority of my dealings have been amicable and productive. I acknowledge a few times where I might have done a better job of assuming good faith, particularly when reverting suspected vandalism, but I've tried to learn from those instances.
 * I've been very fortunate not to have any major conflicts with other editors. There have been one or two times when I've had to count to ten before responding on an article's talk page (Bottle-kicking and Kingston upon Hull come to mind), but the great majority of my dealings have been amicable and productive. I acknowledge a few times where I might have done a better job of assuming good faith, particularly when reverting suspected vandalism, but I've tried to learn from those instances.