Wikipedia:Editor review/Cyberpower678 (2)

Cyberpower678

Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs · count) It's been almost a year since my last editor review and have taken the advice of my fellow editors and attempted to work on it. From my last editor review, my fellow editors have stated that I had a tendency to be a bit impulsive and tended to rush things. Through the course of the year, I have been working hard to fix that and I hope I have sufficiently succeeded in doing so. It was also pointed that I don't do a lot of article work. To be honest, I'm more of a Wikignome and tend to do more backstage work that admins tend to do. I still have my sights set on becoming an administrator of Wikipedia but I still don't feel I have earned the community's confidence yet for that job. I am therefore requesting new input from the community on my conduct, experience, and trustworthiness as an editor on Wikipedia. Please point out to me what I do well and what I lack that needs improvement. —cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I started editing articles, but then I found more interesting tasks more in Wikipedia namespace. I have recently begun to close RfCs. I believe I have gotten good at determining consensus. My best accomplishmentsy are the closure of the resysopping and recrating RfCs and making sure they are enforced, which affected Wikipedia wide policy changes regarding the administrators and bureaucrats.

2. 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.

   I have been in editing disputes at times. If I make an edit and it gets reverted, I would usually tend to ask that editor why they did so and a discussion would go from there. I have had editors be aggressive towards me and attack me. The most recent example, which can be seen in my archives soon, was on Christmas were an editor, that I have never interacted before, blatantly assumed bad faith and was uncivil towards me. Rather than stir up more drama, I stayed out of it and waited for the drama to die down before replying. I'm usually calm on Wikipedia when facing attacks. I'm also quite patient and to my recollection have not yet lashed out towards anyone, even in disputes and stressful situations.

3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?

   What I want to get out of this editor review is the community's view of me. Is my conduct correct? Do I lack judgement? What do I need to improve on? Does the community have confidence in me? What do I need to work on to be a good admin candidate and an admin?

4. Many editors view content creation and improvement to be imperative for an admin candidate. How would you address concerns that you are not here to build an encyclopedia because in October, November, and January combined, you've totaled 18 article space edits and overall just 17% of your edits have been in article space?

   Although I'm not doing much with content creation, I believe being a Wikignome is also just as good and that instead of article, I work with Wikipedia space, template space and other administrative areas. I began an editor working with content but then I discover all the backstage work that can be done which is much more fun. I also believe that once an admin, you probably will find yourself doing less content work anyways.

Reviews

Comments from Go Phightins!

I think that you have a lot of potential to be a solid administrator in the not so distant future and I may, at some point, even be willing to nominate. Honestly, however, I just don't think you'd pass an RfA. Granted, I would probably support, but I support probably 75% of the time, and 50% of admin requests fail, and unfortunately I think you'd probably be in the 25% that I support but fail. Don't despair, however, as I think that if you continue your solid contributions right now, and maybe, though I know this isn't something you're terribly interested in, edit some articles and possibly bring one, even just one, up to GA status from C-Class or below, and start doing some solid consensus-judging at RfA, next year this time you would be a shoo-in. I put very little stock in the number that comes out of Scottywong's admin readiness tool, I mainly just interpret the metrics myself, but I think your blocks are of little concern as one was a mistake and the other was successfully appealed, I think the AfD/RPP/AIV numbers are skewed since you do some work in other areas, but it couldn't hurt to at least !vote once in a while at AfD or do a little RC patrol to show you have a rudimentary knowledge of vandalism. I am curious, if granted the tools, in what admin areas would you do work? Go Phightins! 23:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Since I have a pretty solid grasp of judging consensus, I would start off in AfD, AIV, AAU, and RfPP as well as PERM. I would then expand from there.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 23:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In regards to AAU, what work there would need to be done by a sysop? I'm an adopter, and I have yet to see a need for the tools for myself. Go Phightins! 23:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

FAIL. I meant UAA not AAU. Sorry.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah. OK. Makes sense now. Go Phightins! 23:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7

I don't think you'll pass RfA either. Users with 16% article space edits who want to close RfCs tend to be received poorly. Some solid contributions would be required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not learning anything from this comment. A review of me would be appreciated.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? You were advised in your last review to spend less time treating this as a social networking site and hanging around WT:RFA, WP:AN, and WP:ANI, and to build up your content skills. Did you do that? No. So you do not take well meaning and considered advice to heart. And of course you are going to get the same advice as last time, since you have made little or no effort to remedy the faults that were highlighted. Expecting otherwise shows poor judgement. I would give you a detailed review of your content contributions but frankly, I cannot find any recent contributions. I am unimpressed by your non-admin RfC closures. I would not trust you to close an AfD properly since you don't understand the issues involved in creating articles. Judging consensus is not what it is all about. In a nutshell, becoming an admin is now further away, not closer, than it was last time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That comment is a clear indication that you did not fully read my previous review nor did you read what I was looking for in my reviews. Your comments are nothing more than an opinionated attack against me and are apparent to me that you are simply piggybacking off of another editor.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 20:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Leaky

I have a list of practical suggestions. They are all obvious matters which would certainly be presented by editors in an RfA and should be raised with you by your nominators but are unlikely to be brought to your attention here since editor review is rather obscure. I only came across this when I saw it mentioned elsewhere. However, I'm not sure how well you will react to them, based on your responses here and elsewhere. It is entirely up to you. Leaky Caldron 11:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I am open to improving here. As long as I can draw off of it and learn something from it. I learn best if I am given examples, especially with my own faults that I don't see right away.

My own view on being an Admin. is that it is not about power and privilege and being elected but rather about being selected to serve the community. The rhetoric surrounding the role needs to be diffused. It needs to be less of an ambition and more the case of a volunteer with exceptional skills being willing to provide their time. So that colours my view of candidates at RfA. It is not, I appreciate, a universal viewpoint.

Starting at the beginning with your user page, your first edit 14 months ago [1] will generate some questions which you will need to answer satisfactorily. What identity did you previously edit under should be an easy one. The rest of it is all about wanting to be an Admin – that will be problematic for those who will see you as a hat collector. More on this later. Your current user page has lists of friends. That plays into the social networking concerns previously raised. Why do you need it? Having friends is fine but ask yourself why you need a list? Pledging automatic support for friends is inadvisable. Finally, you have a breach of WP:UP#POLEMIC at the bottom. You must get rid of it.

All the signature changing and that stress indicator stuff – while it shows technical skills, is it really helpful? The stress indicator isn’t a good idea – Admins need to be calm and level headed – not prone to self-confessed mood swings.

Lack of mainspace experience – I have to agree with Hawkeye. You’ve been around RfA long enough to know that lack of mainspace work is a major issue and if you’ve ignored previous advice that will count even more against you. Acting as a solid wikignome will only go so far to make up for lack of article building skills. I don’t think your response to Q4 will be persuasive across the community as a whole.

Volunteering for RfC closes and popping up at all of the noticeboards. I think you need give yourself a break. IMO the best Admin candidates last year were editors I have never heard of. Unless you have genuine involvement or a solid contribution to enlighten a discussion, just popping up everywhere with an opinion can create a negative opinion. Added to your obvious motivation to become an Admin., it can add to the impression that it is part of a campaign to get noticed.

These contributions, [2] by any measure, are not an Admin-like reaction. Ideas can be rejected by anyone at any time and as an Admin you will face vehement opposition at times. The same applies to the stuff last October during the Delta RfA. You should think more carefully about how you are seen by the community at large – jumping on bandwagons criticising an editor might be a popular at the time but actually do not add to the perception people will have when they review your contributions.

What next? Well you can take this advice or leave it. I think it might be an idea to discuss it with Worm if they have the time. 9 months of solid article work, significantly less activity in drama boards, contribute to the BOT activities, address some of the cosmetic talk page concerns, resolve the previous editor query and stop making Admin look like a your sole personal goal. Leaky Caldron 16:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This is very insightful. Thank you very much for your review.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from 64.40

Thought I'd just add my 2 cents here. The work you do here is important and not only that, it's valuable. I don't really know you well, but I read your comments and it seems like your happy. Would you be happier as an admin? If I was to give any RfA advice, it would be the same thing I told Ryan last year. If you run, your RfA may reflect how critical the community has become. It probably won't reflect all the hours and effort you have put in to the project. It's sad that the community has become like this, but you're one of the people that makes this place better. We have some good people here. We also have some technical wizards. But we have very few that are both. Anybody that's been here a while knows who they are. You are one of them, Cyberpower. To reuse a comment I made earlier this year. Your technical ability, calmness, wise decisions and helpfulness are something you should be proud of and something the community should be thanking you for. I'd be very pleased to have you helping in admin areas too. But it would require you to please everybody. And the community has a lot of people that require a lot of pleasing. I'm just happy to have the support you're already giving and I thank you for your time and effort. Best. 64.40.54.184 (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)