Wikipedia:Editor review/Spawn Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Spawn_Man

Spawn_Man (talk • contribs) Hi everyone! I recently found this page & was quite excited about what everyone thought of me. I would like to become an admin some time in the future, but I'm afraid too many people think badly of me due to my increased levels of arguments & stress. I'm a good worker, with 3 FA's, 1 FL & a whole heap of other stuff on my user page, but I'm afraid my personality will get in the way of me getting to adminship, which sucks. I also maintain the Dinosaur collaboration & help organising the WikiProject Dinosaurs crowd & have also been editing since August 2005. I'm prepared to change my work style etc, but I can't change who I am, which also sucks. So anyway, I thought I'd place my name here to see what you guys (or girls) think. Thanks for your comments, if you write them... -- Spawn Man 06:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hmm, it is strange that your only AfD edits were to a bunch of pages of Evangelical preachers created by Jason Gastrich....more later.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Ya, I'm usually an inclusionist, therefore tend to stay clear of deletion stuff. I have commented on deletion pages for a couple of user boxes, a worms (game) subpage & my own subpage, but we may be talking about completely different things... In relation to the Jason Gastrich reference, he did indeed petition to me on my talk page to help him save the pages. I agreed, but only kept the notable articles, such as authors. Hope that answers some questions you may have? Thanks, Spawn Man 06:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I noitced you put up that you are a NZ cricket fan. Down at WP:CRIC we could do with more help with the NZ stuff. As far as your writing and contribution, FA, DYK, brilliant - that's what we are here for nothing else. As for the admin stuff, it doen'st look too good. Anyway it doesn't matter, I'm an admin and I can see that there is an admin superiority complex around the place and frankly there are a lot of admins who are much less useful than lots of normal editors in the "lower castes" - well it doesn't matter to me - there are a lot of guys who do lots of maintenance micro-edits to infalte their count to "win" RfA and then they've reached the top and then stop contributing...unless you count socialising and networking as contributing, which I don't. You either write, clean up, or a combination of the two. Some admins game the RfA count system and then contribute in neither way. Articles are the most important, I spent all my time for the first month after my RfA just deleting stuff, as it appeared as though it was neverending and many admins didn't fulfil their "election promises" so to speak to help clear backlogs, and let's just say that when I got fed up of deleting I realised that there were thousands of articles which I should create, since it appears that nobody else ever edited in that sphere of editing. So, no, you are one of the most useful editors around despite what the popularity contests may say. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Is anyone else gonna comment? .... *crikit*.... Spawn Man 01:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am. If you think some people may dislike you, mako other people like you: join a crowded wikiproject or discuss more in WP:AFD and WP:RFA so more users start thinking you are valuable.—Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • God, I have to talk to these people? I'm doomed... ;) Spawn Man 10:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Review. Sorry for taking so long, I've had a bad case of RSI for the last week or so. Anyway, you should probably expand your AfD activities to other kinds of article (assuming any of the others catch your interest), and try to increase your involvement in those debates at all. Most of your activity appears to be WikiProject-based, which isn't a bad thing, but you might also like to take a look at other projects like WP:RfA. Overall, you look like a very good user - those are the only two things I can think of to improve. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 23:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. By RfA & AfD, I'm assuming you mean Requests for Adminship & Articles for Deletion? I can understand RfA, but why would I have to increase my levels of activity at AfD's? I take no pleasure in deleting other's hard work & I didn't really think that it really impacted on whether I became an admin or not? I will most certainly boost my activity on RfA's, cause they're always fun, but may you explain to me about the AfD thingy? Thanks a bunch Davey! Spawn Man 23:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Admins are required to close AfDs and delete the page if needed. As you wish to become an admin it is a good idea to get experience in this area, as many people look to this area as an important one when considering adminship. Thanks. --Alex | talk / review me | 23:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, and yes. The thing about AfD is that it's not an activity that ends in the deletion of articles by default: it's perfectly alright to !vote "keep" rather than "delete", so long as you can explain exactly why you think the article should be retained according to Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. I see the major benefit as being that, even if you vote "keep" to every single article there, you'll be required to provide some reasoning for every one of them (unless it's a "per other user" vote); moreover, other users will usually reply with a similarly considered reason why the article should be deleted. Over time, I really think this would help you develop a very strong knowledge of Wikipedia's deletion processes and the reasons that articles may be kept here. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 23:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you both for your comments! I'll definitely give it a go... Thanks, Spawn Man 10:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Review Spawn Man, I think it's great you're willing to let your contributions to the encyclopedia be examined; it is often really hard to put yourself under a microscope, knowing there will be people who pick at any detail out of place. You are a valuable contributer to Wikipedia. Your work in getting three dinosaur articles featured, as well as the List of dinosaurs, is nothing short of amazing. You bring much enthusiasm to WP:Dinosaurs. Before you pursue an adminship, wait at least four months (preferably six) after your last major fight with someone on Wikipedia. This will show the RFA !voters that you can keep a level head (for x number of months). Like the folks above said, you should participate in *FD (WP:AFD, WP:RFD, WP:MFD, etc). The more you participate, the more you will understand Wikipedia's policies on deletion (and non-deletion), which is a major part of being an Administrator. Participate on WP:RFA. It's fun, and it will give you a good idea of what !voters are looking for in an Admin candidate. Check out WP:RC and become a vandal-fighter. If people see your name regularly on the vandal-reporting pages, they are more likely to believe you have a need for Admin-type tools, like the blocking ability. Try to always stay civil, even if you're really upset. Remember that the person on the other end also wants what's best for the encyclopedia, but just doesn't agree with you. Consider joining Esperanza's Admin Coaching program. A good Admin trainee trainer can whip you into good editing shape, given time. I'll try to comment more later. :) Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Who says I'll be around for 6 months? Anyway, the only reason I don't RC patrol is because whenever I go to revert, it's always been reverted quicker! Waah! Thanks a lot for your comments Firsfron! Hope you have a nice day! Spawn Man 08:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, of course, those are all just suggestions. You don't have to take all that advice (or any of it, really). Just consider some of them. I do know what you mean about RC patrol. At the same time, tons of vandalism on Wikipedia still gets overlooked. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Answer Although I harp on about it a lot, my favourite contribution were my edits to Dinosaur, which ended in the article being Featured. Although I have 2 other FA's, this one was special because at the time WikiProject was inactive, so practically all of the work was mine, where as with Velociraptor & Tyrannosaurus, I had the Prject's safety net to fall back on. Spawn Man 06:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. 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?
    Answer God, the correct question should be, "Which people have you not had a tiff with?"! I have had many arguments in my year plus here. Of course I always blame the other person for giving me stress, but admittedly, I cause some problems too. I usually deal with it by attacking the other person in a huge fight before making up & then going on a Wikibreak. I have had a total of 2 Wikibreaks already, the first was for 1 month, the second was for 2 weeks. However, I'm trying to deal disagreements in a calmer fashion of late, including difusing a heated discussion with Soo earlier. Nobody's perfect, apart from me. But on the serious side, I feel this is my beggest let down on Wikipedia - all the enemies I've racked up... Spawn Man 06:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/Wikipedia%7EEditor_review_Spawn_Man_f312.html"