Wikipedia:Editor review/Porchcrop (4)

Porchcrop
I'd like to know if there are any areas that I can improve. And if I am ready to become an administrator, if I am, I will close this editor review early and transclude my RFA early. Remember that I do make mistakes because I am human. Remember that I am not a world expert. See my User:Porchcrop/Wikipedia learning log. -Porchcrop (talk 08:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I have alot of good contributions, mostly to keep Wikipedia running well.
 * 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:EQ or WP:AGF
 * Just when editors violate WP:EQ or WP:AGF

 Reviews 
 * Will review you in a bit if no one else has, but I'd strongly encourage you to add db-author to the top of that RfA page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. I tagged the RFA for deletion, because it could help in case an established editor or administrator wants to nominate me -- that way I will know best if I can become an admin. -Porchcrop (talk 04:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, although you may not realize it now, by that action, you have demonstrated that you may eventually become admin material. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll provide more detailed comments within the next 1-2 days too, but in the meantime I concur with Reaper Eternal above and most emphatically suggest that you do not attempt to run for administrator again for at least one year, February 28, 2012, and then after that time you can seek advice on whether it would be a good time to run. I know that may seem like a long time and I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but do know that I'm saying this because I like you and want to help you, and I think it would be a serious harm to your reputation if you ran again right now. I'll elaborate on my reasoning in my later comments. Best, Zachlipton (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what else I can say here Porchcrop that I have not said before. You've seemed to have some troubles with WP:UAA, and have now been editing alot with StWiki. It has not been long at all since your last RFA, four months? Less? I suggest you refrain from re-applying for RFA until March 2012 (1 year). I'm simply trying to help you. All the best. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 20:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I recognize your enthusiasm, and that is to be commended. That said, it is apparent that in that enthusiasm, policies and guidelines are overlooked and "mistakes" are made. Honestly, nobody expects perfection here. However, it is important to learn from your mistakes. You consistently claim that you know what you are doing, yet you are consistently unable to edit according to policy and guidelines. This is troubling and actually causes quite a bit of work for others to clean up after you. Spend some serious time reviewing the deletion policy. Then review it again. And again. In any area on Wikipedia that you want to work in, spend time learning the policies and guidelines. Read them often. Review them often. I appreciate that you are able to keep a level head and actually submit to an editor review. Based on your editing history and previous RfA's I would recommend that you save face and step back from transcluding your request. Work on gaining some credibility with the community by reading, reviewing, and adhering to the guidelines and policies. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  09:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with Cinamuse's review entirely. Harsh as it may seem, it's spot on, to the point where it's left me with nothing to add.  Swarm   X 16:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Review by Frank
Porchcrop - It's clear the purpose of this ER is a preparation for submitting an RfA. You are to be complimented for checking first by opening this review. You are gaining experience but still a long way from being an administrator.

Here are some reasons why I say this:
 * Your edit count shows under 1,000 edits to articles, and that number is also less than your edits to user talk pages. People like to see editors who mainly contribute to the encyclopedia above all else, and at RfA, general several thousand article edits are preferred.
 * People should not need a whole page of instructions for contacting you. The fact that you have a page detailing that shows a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia really works.
 * This is pretty minor, but it does show a lack of attention to detail: you placed a tag on a user page and didn't look at it after the fact to see that you had placed it incorrectly. First, there was clearly a typo so the template you were trying to SUBST was not able to be found, but even if you remove the leading - character, there are parameters that were not included. Lots of times a CSD tag is the first thing a new user sees on their talk page; that is intimidating enough without it being incomprehensible to them. You are an experienced editor, so hopefully you'd be able to do that better so you can help new users who are interested in knowing why their article might be deleted.
 * User:Porchcrop/Problems is a problem by itself. You are creating a page in which you claim to be allowing people to post "problems" they have with you, but right in the title you make it clear that anything someone puts on the page is false: Well then put all your (false?) negative information here.

I know you don't like to hear negative evaluations of your contributions, and you think that people should also post positive if they are going to post negative. In an ideal world, that might be more true than it is, but like you, other people are human too and they don't necessarily take the time to consider how their actions might affect others, such as you. I do have some positive things to say: you are definitely trying to help, and definitely working hard at it. I notice you have a lot of deleted contributions, and while I didn't look through them, the usually indicates someone who is spending time tagging pages for deletion and having them deleted. You are clearly trying to keep promotional and offensive usernames from getting too far around here. You certainly spend time nominating spam and other inappropriate articles to be deleted, even if you don't get it right every time.

So my recommendation to you is to take a long time focusing on simply editing articles. Don't worry about becoming an admin...if you stick to contributing to articles, other people will notice you and ask you to help out with things, or suggest other things for you to do, and eventually, when folks think you are editing the way an admin does, someone may even suggest you submit an RfA. When a long-term, well-respected editor contacts you with that suggestion, that's how you'll know when you're ready to consider it. Until then, you should concentrate strictly on editing articles, improving them by adding references, categories, templates, and the like.

If you have any questions, feel free to let me know. Frank &#124;  talk  02:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Frank. The part of you saying "This is pretty minor, but it does show a lack of attention to detail: you placed a tag on a user page" -- It wasn't a userpage, it was a user talk page, and I wasn't placing a CSD tag, I was placing a CSD notice. Oh and I see I have made a wrong typo in adding that notice. And my instructions for contacting page is just a page where I give instructions to other users for contacting me via talk page, email, or IRC. And that contacting info page is all my personal option, which I have the right to do. But anyways, thanks for the review. -Porchcrop (talk 02:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct, it was a user talk page and a CSD notice. Nevertheless, it was not carefully done. I know what your instruction page is, and yes, you certainly have the personal option and right to do so. But that doesn't mean that the community finds it an appropriate way to communicate with the rest of the community, which was my point. Administrators are expected to be more collegial and easier to approach than most users, and editors who wish to become administrators are generally expected to behave like administrators first. Frank  &#124;  talk  03:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You say that I am too far to becoming an admin. Are there any areas that I can/must still improve? -Porchcrop (talk 03:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not too far. Just very far. My recommendation is above: focus on editing articles. Forget about tags, vandalism reverts, reporting usernames, and everything else. Edit articles. As you learn how to do that - really learn how to do that, you will almost certainly learn about other things around here at the same time. But focus on article improvement, first and foremost. Frank  &#124;  talk  03:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I do edit articles sometimes. But since I do not have alot of information to put in articles, that is why I don't edit articles alot. -Porchcrop (talk 03:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Learning where to find sources is part of how you will mature around here. There are literally articles on this site. I promise you they don't all have as many sources as they could; nor do they have the best sources they can. Some do...more do NOT.  Frank  &#124;  talk  03:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm okay. Could you tell me where I can find sources? -Porchcrop (talk 03:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your local public or school library probably has online access to many, many sources you could cite in articles. Of course there are Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar. Time (magazine) is one of many long-running magazines with much of its content online. Note that while online sources are not strictly required, you will have fewer problems if people can easily check what you have added. Also be very mindful of WP:RS, and notice I didn't say just plain Google searches were good. Often they give non-useful hits. Frank  &#124;  talk  13:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Partial review by WereSpielChequers
Frank has already covered a lot of issues, and I agree with much of what he has said. You've got nearly 5,000 edits which is more than some successful RFA candidates, But for adminship you need more article work, purely gnomish editing is useful but an admin is expected to know how to add material that is referenced to reliable sources. A featured or even a good article would clearly show you were a different candidate than the Porchcrop of your previous RFAs, but I'd be happy to assess your contributions if your Question 2 could at least point to a DYK you've written or some articles you've referenced. After four unsuccessful RFAs the community would expect a big change to shift to support, and I would suggest waiting longer than the normal three month interval because of the succession of four failed RFAs. In the meantime there are lots of things that you can do here without the tools. When you are ready, as well as a question 2 that showed examples of you contributing referenced material to the pedia you really ought to include a paragraph saying what you've learned from your previous RFAs and why you are ready now. The shorter the gap between RFAs the more important that paragraph would be.

CSD tagging is useful, but for someone to be ready for adminship it is nice to see them being more rounded in their editing. When I was at Newpage patrol I installed Hotcat and adopted the policy of "if in doubt categorise". By the time I passed RFA my NPP edits were a mix of tagging, categorising, copyediting and welcoming newbies.

Another thing you might consider before RFA is picking a subject you care about, sourcing the uBLPs that you can source by a Google search or better still looking in the library, and prodding the rest. That goes down well at RFA, it demonstrates both ability to source articles and a willingness to clean up after others - ideal qualities for adminship. Have a look at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates, there are hundreds of Wikiprojects to choose from, bound to be one that interests you.

Alternatively if you are still studying or at least have access to the books you read as a student, have a look at the articles that are most relevant to the studies you did and see if you can improve them.

Take care and happy editing  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review Mr WereSpielChequers. :) -Porchcrop (talk 05:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:Boing! said Zebedee
Just a comment about your User:Porchcrop/Instructions for contacting page rather than an actual review - hope you don't mind. You have a right to have it, as you say above, but I think it could prove to be a serious impediment to any future RfA run. Admins (all editors, really) shouldn't be creating lots of needlessly officious "contact me" rules - they should be saying something more like "Contact me however you wish - I'm here to help".

I would definitely recommend losing the User:Porchcrop/Problems page and the "Do not give me negative comments on my main talk page. If you want to give any negative information about me, do it all here. Negative comments sent to me on my main talk page will be move to the problems discussion page." rule - if people want to give you feedback, they'll use your Talk page, because that is what it is for, and they won't be bothered by a whole set of instructions on where to put what specific types of comments.

And I really don't think you should move "negative" comments around onto different pages yourself, because amongst the things people look for in admin candidates are openness, and a complete and continuous set of Talk page archives with nothing hidden off anywhere else (which is why people recommended against your trying to expunge your Talk page history recently, if you remember). It's going to look bad if an admin candidate appears to be hiding negative stuff away from their Talk page. Take a look at my Talk page archives, for example - everything that's ever been said to me, including negative comments and discussions of my mistakes, is all there (with the exception of a few bits of blatant vandalism that were reverted at the time).

Basically, you're making communication, which should be a very simple thing, very complicated. And that is the exact opposite of what admin hopefuls (and, as I say, editors in general) should be doing - have a look round some admin user/talk pages and see if you can find any with such a complicated set of "Here's how to talk to me" rules.

Anyway, as usual, I've waffled for longer than intended - but I hope it helps -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to make some comments about the user pages mentioned above but Boing! said Zebedee has covered them. To Porchcrop: These pages are not helpful. Their existence indicates you don't really understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. It also indicates that you believe any negative comments are unjust and "false". Over the years I have interacted with you and seen your edits, I don't believe you have grown very much as an editor to understand the project more. You seem to have a goal of becoming an administrator and be in a position of authority, but understanding those powers seems to come second. I would strongly suggest you look into doing real mainspace edits for a while, and more than just tool edits. The administration is important, but content creation is very important too. The more you're involved in the mainspace, the more you'll understand the "why" of various policies and guidelines. Please don't view this comment as "negative" or "false" and try to take something in. --Bill (talk 15:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Boing! I had hid my talk page history. But when you told me that it wouldn't look good in my record, I had asked ErikHaugen to merge it. -Porchcrop (talk 05:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that. What I'm trying to say here is that the "negative feedback page" could easily be seen as falling into the same category of trying to hide negative things away from your Talk page. Your Talk page (and its archives) is where people will expect to see all records of your past interactions with others, both positive and negative. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and the contacting info page, I do say "I am here to help you". See User:Porchcrop/Instructions for contacting. -Porchcrop (talk 05:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there's a big contradiction between saying "I'm here to help", and then having a whole page full of detailed contact instructions including that "there's a special page for negative stuff" rule. Anyway, please do have a think about what I've said. Obviously you can keep it all if you like, but I really don't think it would look good for an admin candidate, and I think others would agree with me - as I suggested, have a look around and see if you can find a single admin with such a complicated set of contact instructions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: While we're on the subject, you should definitely get rid of that threat at the top of your Talk page - the one that says people will get into trouble if they disobey your contact instructions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * porchcrop; I have to echo BSZ's words. I could easily have written that; but I decided it would be more productive to simply get to the point. I suggest you delete User:Porchcrop/Problems, and take every word said by all the commenters here - with strong consideration. Thanks T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 13:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The threat at the top of my talk page is not a threat, it's just to warn the users who want to post in my talk page that they don't know which rules they disobey they could get into trouble. (When they get reported.) -Porchcrop (talk 01:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that's how you mean it, but it reads like a threat. It simply isn't necessary to warn people all over the place that breaking rules can get them into trouble, as it sounds patronizing - you should assume that people already know that's how rules work. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Pleased to see the User:Porchcrop/Problems page and associated rule has now gone - you deserve recognition for listening and acting. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Beeblebrox
I realize you probably didn't want to hear from me, but honest criticism is what ER is for, and since you want to be an admin someday you need to be able to show that you can handle being criticized.

I see that you (finally) tagged your latest RFA for deletion instead of transcluding it. That is the first and only sign I have seen that you are able to listen to what other users are saying and learn from your own mistakes. I know you are generally acting in good faith, but good faith is not a substitute for good judgement and an ability to learn. The whole mess where you attempted to hide the edit history of your talk page in order to remove all trace of anything that might reflect badly on you is a perfect example. As has been stated above, nobody expects perfection. What we do expect is that if you have had something explained to you three or four times you start to show some understanding of it. Posting an editor review as yet more prep work for yet another doomed RFA shows a level of clueless hard headed refusal to listen and learn that dooms any chance you have at RFA for a long time. Personally I don't think a year is long enough. I get the impression you are quite young, you should wait several years until you have matured quite a bit before even thinking about RFA again. Your obsession with adminship and your forays into areas better left to more clueful users are the source of most if not all of the problems you have been having. Put adminship out of your head, and try to tamp down that ego a bit while you are at it. Admitting when you are wrong and trying to learn from the experience is a sign of maturity, not weakness. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by N5iln
I've spent a while this afternoon looking through your Contribution history, your User Talk page, and the Editor Review comments above. My overall impression is that while you think you're doing right by the entire Wikipedia project, others are pointing out a large number of areas where you are falling short of your goals...sometimes disastrously. What disturbs me more is that you continue to make those same mistakes instead of taking the advice being offered and learning from it.

I'm far from perfect, and I admit it. Goethe said "Man errs, so long as he is striving." But I do make a concentrated effort to hear people when they say I'm making a mistake, and then learn from that mistake in order to keep from making it again. There's a world of difference between continuing to make a mistake because you don't know, or haven't been told, it's a mistake, and continuing to make a mistake after it's been brought to your attention. The latter is what I see from you far too often. I've watched one very-well-meaning editor receive a long-term, enforced Wikibreak because they either didn't or couldn't learn from their errors, and I'd really prefer not to see it happen to you. Wikipedia needs devoted and dedicated editors. But more importantly, Wikipedia needs devoted, dedicated editors whose work actually improves the project as a whole.

I dabble in areas which aren't strictly the bailiwick of the average editor, but I do so only with careful thought beforehand, and only when I think what I'm contributing is actually going to help, and if I'm told I'm dabbling in the wrong area, I apologize and back out. Reporting to WP:UAA or WP:AIV is something any editor can (and should) do. Removing WP:CSD tags requires a very good grounding in the appropriate policies, and based on what I've read, you simply don't have that grounding yet. Replying to WP:UAA or WP:AIV reports should be limited to additional information that a reviewing admin will find helpful in deciding whether the report was well-founded and valid, and although the UAA page does welcome commentary from non-admins, that commentary does need to be restricted to helpful information.

I think you'd do very well for yourself if you were to enlist an experienced mentor to assist you with the issues that have been identified here and on your User Talk page. There's no reason to think you can't develop into an editor worthy of the mop, given time and honest effort. But the time and honest effort must, by definition, come first.

Best of fortunes to you. Regards, Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment By Dayewalker
I'm (as far as I remember) completely uninvolved here, and a quick glance at your contributions leads me to make a quick suggestion. You need to realize you are not an admin, nor will you become one. Sorry to be blunt, but you're not going to get there if that's your only goal. You've been here for years, but still don't grasp some of the basic principles of the encyclopedia. Because of that, you're making more work for other editors to clean up, as you can tell by the overwhelming consensus at your ANI thread.

That doesn't mean your contributions aren't wanted at Wikipedia, though. If you will (either because of sanction, or choice) turn away from the parts of Wikipedia that aren't actually building an encyclopedia, you can become a good content contributor. That's always welcome. Seek out a mentor, not just for admin training but for just general knowledge about the encyclopedia. Actually listen to the comments from other editors, and take their advice. Stop the pretense of setting up other talk pages for criticism, and open your ears to what people are telling you.

Honest advice, here, no malice intended. If you want to contribute, go right ahead. But if you're only here to become an admin, that won't happen. Good luck in the future, I sincerely hope you take my advice and the other advice given in your review. Dayewalker (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Kudpung
I agree with  Boing! said Zebedee - I'm also a bit concerned about your  User:Porchcrop/Instructions for contacting page. Some of us have a thing like this on  our talk  pages, but I've never seen anyone else having  such  a page as yours; do  you really  need it? I can be quite outspoken on Wikipedia as everyone here knows, and I  have to  delete or revert a lot  of other people's stuff, but I  only  very very rarely get  any rude messages, and in spite of the hundreds, perhaps thousands of messages on  my  talk  page, I've never had one that  was bad enough to  carry  out  any  of the threats you  list  on your page. I also think  this ATTENTION WIKIPEDIANS speech on  your User Pgae is a bit OTT. From my  point  of view, those messages  make it  look  almost as if you  are not  going  to  be a very  nice person to  contact. It kind of looks as if you  are expecting  people to  to  post  the kind  of messages you  would take offense to, and that's not  really  the best  way  of demonstrating  your understanding  of what  we mean with  good faith. I'm absolutely sure you are a nice person, but it's quite possible that those statements convey the wrong image of the enthusiastic and helpful editor you  want  to  be. I suggest you  request that 'Instructions' page to  be removed  per User pages U1 and be satisfied with the kind of template many  of us use already. If you want any  help  making  one like it, don't  hesitate to  ask  me. Kudpung (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)