Wikipedia:Editor review/Porchcrop (3)

Porchcrop
How are my edits now? Porchcrop PC 06:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Well I have done vandal fighting, helping newbies, new page patrolling, doing some article work, etc.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * Just when editors violate WP:Etiquette and WP:AGF.
 * Just when editors violate WP:Etiquette and WP:AGF.

 Reviews 

Review by Tofutwitch11 - Chat - How'd I do?    I am experienced and ready for being an Admin"'' and then ignoring other editors when they explain why you may not be, is not helpful.
 * Attitude: All to often I have seen you get defensive when other editors try to help you, whether that be by constructive criticism etc, and you have gotten defensive. They are not here to attack you, and that is not their goal. We just want to help you, but if you choose not to take our advice and yell at us, and continue to insist you don't need help etc, we can't help you. We try.
 * RFA's: As mentioned on your talk page, please do not re-apply until you have at least 3,000-5,000 mainspace edits. Stating that ''
 * CSD's: Once again, as on your talk page, do not place CSD tags on people talk pages, and, to stay safe, on their user pages either. It causes controversy, and the fact that their pages are there has little to no effect on the overall encyclopedia, it is better and more productive to post them on pages.
 * Edits: Your user page is very nice, but it should not be your main focus. You have just about, (or more now) 400 mainspace edits, and nearly as many to user pages. People will not judge you by your user page, but by how many good edits on your user pages. The encyclopedia needs much more work than your user page.
 * Overall: You are certainly helpful to the community, and we appreciate your help. Keep up the good work. Just so you know, my talk page is open if you need help. Tofutwitch11 - Chat - How'd I do?    22:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review Tofutwitch. Porchcrop PC 06:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Review by -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see an enthusiastic and constructive attitude here, and a strong desire to help improve the project. I also see a keenness to learn and to improve, and I urge you to continue with that process. One thing I would suggest is not to try to do too much too quickly. I know there can be a strong feeling that vandalism needs zapping immediately and bad articles need deleting as soon as possible etc - I've been there and felt like that myself, and I still make the occasionally too-hasty edit. But in reality, very few things are really that urgent. So take your time with things, and use each edit as an opportunity to learn more. For example, something I frequently do when I'm looking at a possible CSD, PROD or AfD candidate is explore the relevant category a bit further than I have previously, and I'll dig deeper into some of the links I haven't followed before.
 * You're still relatively inexperienced. Over 3,000 edits is pretty good going, but only around 500 edits are to article space - although I do recognize that a lot of your article space edits were CSD work and are now in your deleted edits count, which stands at almost 600. One area where you might perhaps expand your experience is in article development. I know you've done some, but if you see a short article that needs some expansion and some sources, perhaps do some searching and see if you can find some reliable sources, and then expand it some more? (Your standard of English grammar, spelling, etc certainly seems to be up to the task).
 * You are young, which is great - Wikipedia needs a constant supply of keen young people to keep it going. But it's a 2-sided thing. For one thing, do make sure you don't spend too much of your young life on Wikipedia, and make the most of other things too (When I was still at school, there was no internet, and computers were still the size of rooms - and I ended up doing a whole load of different things). And secondly, younger people are naturally still developing the maturity that older people have already built up, and so you might not be able to deal with stressful things as well as older people would - having said that, I think you're generally doing OK with it, but see next point.
 * You seem to be quite sensitive to feedback. There's a very good side to that, in that you're clearly keen to get constructive feedback to help you develop further. But there can be a downside too, and I think you sometimes misinterpret negative feedback as being less civil than it really is. It is easy to see strongly worded opinions as lacking in etiquette, but again I think there's a youth/maturity aspect to it - from my older and more experienced perspective, I didn't see any transgressions of etiquette or AGF on some of the occasions where I think you did. On the positive feedback side, it will come with time - if you just carry on with your good work, expand into other Wikipedia areas as and when you feel the time is right, you'll be surprised to get nice feedback from time to time. (And you've got, what, around 1,000 article edits including deleted ones - 2 barnstars in that time is pretty good going!).
 * Regarding CSD, I can see that you have been listening to feedback and you are improving the quality of your work there quite nicely. I would echo the suggestion of sticking to articles for that, as other page types can be quite tricky - although if something really is blatant advertising or a blatant personal attack, go for it.
 * Anyway, I've done my usual and have waffled on for longer than I intended. So in short, I think you're doing fine, and my main recommendation is really to just carry on as you're going, and move into other areas as and when you feel you want to - no need to rush anything.
 * Thanks for the advises Boing! I will take the advises. Lord Porchcrop 06:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Review by PrincessofLlyr  royal court
 * Really, there's not a lot to say that the other two haven't covered already. Concentrate on article work and be patient. You've shown considerable interest in adminship before, so I will emphasize, as I'm sure you've heard before, there's no rush. Continue steadily working the way you have and I think you'll be fine. PrincessofLlyr  royal court 17:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review Princess. Lord Porchcrop POWER 02:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Review by FeydHuxtable (talk)
 * There already seems to be some great reviews and advise here so I cant do much more than reiterate whats been said.You seem to be making good progress and many valuable contributions. Sampling your editing theres a lot to like. Some nice helpful talk page comments such as here where you keep your edits professional, concise and calm . Plenty of nice gnomish edits to articles, though it would be good to see more edits where you add content along with references.


 * Id advise probably holding off for at least another year before you have another go at RfA. Several times even skilled editors in their 30s and 40s get rejected there, so its best to wait until you have plenty of experience. And it wouldnt be worth sacrificing too much of your free time to clock up a big edit count in a hurry. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review Feyd. Lord Porchcrop POWER 09:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Zachlipton (talk)
 * Review sounds so formal and I really just want to chip in with two notes in addition to the excellent comments everyone has made above:
 * UAA: I wanted to suggest that you take your time a little bit more with your Usernames_for_administrator_attention reports. I've noticed a number from you that either don't seem to break the guidelines at all or are pretty borderline. Reports like this one have the power to be offensive and can definitely scare away legitimate new users. "I Want My GayTV" is not a problematic username on its own, and there were no red flags about the user's editing patterns to suggest a problem. Fortunately, that user seems to have been wiling to move past it, and he/she has been rather prolific in the past few days, including single-handily creating Stage Mother (film) today, but many new users would have left after receiving that warning. I'm more sympathetic to borderline UAA reports about users who are clearly disruptive (first few edits are vandalism, spammers, etc...), but if an editor seems legitimate and their username isn't blatantly offensive, there's no rush to deal with it. Think carefully about whether it really breaks the guidelines, be clear about what guideline you think it breaks, and follow the suggested steps to politely ask them to resolve the issue.
 * Adminship: From your contributions, it looks like you are readying Requests for adminship/Porchcrop 5. I humbly suggest that you consider WP:NOTYET and seek another editor review in at least six months before you consider requesting adminship again. Admin coaching may be an opportunity to consider taking advantage of in another few months as well. Edit-count-itius isn't something I'm fond of, but I think most people will see four SNOW-closed RfAs, 4,000 edits (3,000) live, and oppose on the basis that you haven't gotten the point. Eventually, this is going to hurt your reputation and make it more difficult for you to successfully apply for adminship when you are ready, which you will be one day! If you consult GRFA and the accompanying chart, you'll see that successful nominees tend to average around 20,000 edits. It obviously varies, but the trend seems to be that community members like to see higher edit counts from editors who mostly focus on vandalism and patrols than from editors who are more involved in content creation. You have been a helpful contributor and I think all of us want to see more from you, but I'd focus a little more on letting people recognize you for good work that you're doing than on requesting recognition through adminship. Zachlipton (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bonus comment: (boy, this is becoming a bit longer then planned). I would encourage you to give some more content creation a try. I've been doing a bit of this myself, as I usually tend towards the patrol and gnomish sides of the project, which you do very well, and while I've felt a bit silly at first, it's helped me with my RC/newpages patrol work too by better understanding what goes into article creation and collaboration. When you're going through RC, it's easy for editing to feel like an adversarial process where it's you vs. the vandals. Mostly, you're shooting warnings off into the ether and occasionally explaining basic policy to users with questions (something I've seen you do well btw). Content creation is much more collaborative and less about citing policy, I think it's something that's helpful to be exposed to. Zachlipton (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review Zach. :) Lord Porchcrop POWER 04:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)