Wikipedia:Editor review/Phantomsteve

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is an archive copy of an Editor Review. If you wish to make comments now, please do so on User talk:Phantomsteve instead. Thank you.

---

Phantomsteve

Phantomsteve (talk · contribs · count) I have been using Wikipedia for about 4 years now, but have been more active recently. I am looking for ideas on how to improve as an editor! I know I'm miles off applying for admin, but I believe life is all about improving yourself, and learning! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

I really mean it when I say I think you are almost a "model" Wikipedian. You're always thoroughly and helpfully answering questions on the help desk, and even on your own talkpage! You seem to have a knack for being able to easily explain the most complicated policies and guidelines to new users; in addition, you are direct: you tell the user what is wrong with their article or image and how to fix it without adding any "filler" or unnecessary reading. You're also always friendly; I've never seen you in a bad mood, or run across a discussion where you've made an uncivil comment. Also, I like how you edit Wikipedia with the goal of improving the project, and, as you say, "improving yourself" through learning, not with the goal of high edit counts or getting the mop.

I am particularly impressed with the quite rational response to the second question. Editors that a) have the ability to step away and take a break when something in their life causes them stress and b) do not let disputes affect them off-wiki (if they get into any disputes to begin with!) are probably Wikipedia's best and most-valuable editors. There is an imaginary line between WikiWorld and the real world, and those who keep each thing on its side of the line will end up being the happiest and most successful in both.

I'm beginning to ramble on, so I'd better wrap up. I would like to see you get the mop someday. I think it's great that you are genuinely interested in improving any and every article you come across. Wikipedia needs more editors like you! Xenon54 / talk / 20:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Xenon54 is spot on. I found this page from your user page, where I'd come to give you a barnstar for your untiring work at the help desk. But now that I'm here, I'd like to say a few words on your behalf, instead.

First, I disagree that you're "miles away" from applying for admin status. Skills can be learned, and there appears to be a lot of good material available to help new or aspiring admins learn them. What can't be learned, or can be learned only with great difficulty, are personal attributes like humility, a natural respect for others, and the patience to deal kindly with the same kinds of mistakes over and over again from different users who don't know any better.

Second, I don't see that there's a necessary correlation between having created lots of articles and an application for admin status at all. I agree that it'd be a good idea to create a few more when you can find time to do that, but I could wish that some of our admins had created fewer articles in favor of spending a few months, at least, on the help desk. Yes, we need people who create articles, but we also crucially need people who can regulate and maintain the social infrastructure that article creation and collaboration rests upon, and who can do that without bringing excessive ego needs into the process.

Sure, create a few more articles if you want to, that'd be great. And I think it might be helpful, too, if you were to get involved in editing some controversial articles where you have a strong POV for a while, too, to give yourself the experience of editing from a NPOV stance when you do have a POV. Dealing with others who have the opposite POV, in a context where the editing can become polarized into "sides", or "camps", could also give you a more concentrated opportunity to exercise and develop the level-headed, AGF attitude that you've already shown at the help desk.

Now I've rambled on, so I'll stop, except to say that you clearly have "the right stuff" to support an application for admin privileges, and to express my hope that you'll apply sooner rather than later. We need more admins who have your humility and who have the dedication to the five pillars that you exemplify. Cheers, Ohiostandard (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I tend to do bits and bobs! I like to answer questions on the Help Desk, and recently I have been doing a little bit of vandalism patrol. I like to find citations for article (which I come across randomly, through looking at Category:Articles lacking sources or Category:Articles lacking in-text citations), or sometimes I'll come across an article that looks interesting through HD questions. Recently, I have started looking through the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion looking for articles mistakenly labelled for SD when they don't meet the criteria, or changing the SD tag to a more appropriate one. The only major contribution I've made article-wise is the William Stanley (Victorian inventor) article, which I researched and wrote up - and am looking to improve.

3. 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 not really had editing disputes. Differences of opinions, of course, we all have those - but not really disputes. I don't tend to get stressed with other editors here - after all, I don't know them off-wiki, they don't know me, and it's not worth getting stressed about. If the situation arose where I was getting stressed, I'd just take a few hours/days/weeks away from Wikipedia - it is possible, from the rumours I've heard!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.