Wikipedia:Editor review/LaraLove 2

LaraLove

LaraLove (talk · contribs) This is my second review (first one can be viewed here). I requested the first after some unnecessary drama at Good article review that led me to take a Wikibreak from Wikiproject Good articles (I'll expand on this in question one). I was considering leaving the project for good and was hoping others could review my contributions and possibly make suggestions on other areas of the encyclopedia that would interest me. I followed some of those suggestions, some I am just getting into, others remain on my to-do list and watchlist. I realize from the instructions that this is not to evaluate for potential adminship, but from the comments given in my previous ER and from others since then coupled with my recent participation in WP:RfA, I am interested to gauge how my RfA might go... Hopefully get suggestions here that I would otherwise get in oppose votes there. However, all other comments and suggestions not relating to an RfA are certainly welcome. Thank you, Lara♥Love 17:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

• Hi Lara! You are a great editor, but I would encourage you to moderate your tone if you plan on going for RfA. You subscribe to WP:DGAF but sometimes your words can have unintended consequences/repercussions. Maybe you should subscribe to the "count to ten and reread a couple times before you hit save" policy (I have to do this sometimes and it has saved me a lot of grief. Mark Twain used to write scathing letters to all sorts of people and his wife would sneak out to the mailbox and remove them. He got to vent and avoided the all the consequences) Also, I think that a more varied set of contribs will probably be requested/mentioned at an RfA. WP:GA is good, but people like admins to have experience in more than just one area of WP. Cheers—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 00:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You asked me to be a little more specific, so... I remember that you had a little gaff on WT:RFA when they were discussing self-noms by new users. It was a pretty innocuous comment you made, but it had great potential to be misunderstood, and I think an editor took offense. Other than that, I haven't seen much strife outside of your interactions with Pm/Sept/whatever ...and well... we all differences of opinion(to put it lightly). I don't know how I feel about that whole debacle (ick!) but I can assure you that I (and most others) won't hold it against you should it come to RFA. Cheers—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 06:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Lara, you rock. Count on me for support... If you're sure you wanna go for admin... then it's beneficial to become involved in vandal fighting, e.g. RC patrolling. People also look favorably on a nontrivial amount of time spent (couple months?) involved with XfDs, as well as making helpful comments on WP:AN and WP:ANI... plus I like Cronholm's "admins should count to ten" comment above... later! Ling.Nut 18:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ling.Nut. I am involved in vandal fighting, to a point. I did RC patrolling quite a bit earlier on, but with a to-do list longer than my intestines, I usually don't get around to it anymore. I do still report vandals to AIV as I encounter them in my regular editing. That aside, I scoped out XFD and, considering all the article reviews I do in GA and for FA by request, I have zero interest in reviewing even more articles. I also scoped out AN and I think I've made a few comments, but overall, having really thought it through, I don't think I want admin.

I stopped to really think about it (prompted by another editor who I thought was an admin, and think would be a great admin, but who doesn't want the hassle of what he called "a thankless job"). It occurred to me that I'm trying all these new areas that I don't really enjoy, taking myself away from GA, which is where I really want to be, and for what? I don't need the tools (which, personally, I don't think should be a requirement), I don't have an interest in getting involved in processes that I have no interest in for the sole purpose of obtaining said tools, and I'm physically incapable of biting my tongue 24/7. How I am is how I am. I'm not changing me to please others. I don't bite the n0obs, and if there are vets being ridiculous, I'm not sugar coating the spanking to keep up appearances. I asked Cronholm to give some examples, but it doesn't matter at this point. If my strong opinions, sarcasm, and quips put others off without me even realizing it, there's no way I'm going to be able to keep myself in check without killing all the fun in being here. So, for that reason, I don't want it.

I'm here for the betterment of the encyclopedia. There are endless areas for me to work on as a regular editor to achieve that goal. Do I think I'd make a great admin? Absolutely. Would my strong opinions, sarcasm, and quips continue? More than likely. Will I have a successful RfA with this attitude? Sure... the same day that pigs fly into a frozen Hell, spitting strawberries and whistling Dixie out of their assholes. So should I be fake and keep this all to myself and go for it anyway? Hell no. Not my style.

So, with all that revealed, maybe I'll go for admin when I'm older and wiser... and when this diff is too far back in my contribs for anyone to find and use against me. :) Lara♥Love 03:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For an editor that joined Wikipedia so recently, your contributions are significant to the community. (God I want to know why nobody do my editor review...) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 10:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good contributions on the GA front. However, I believe that you need to understand policy as well, such as WP:BLP, WP:3RR, and WP:IAR. Also, participate in a couple of WP:XFD/WP:AFD discussions in order to understand consensus of closing WP:AFD discussions. Cheers. Miranda 04:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, but I've already got that stuff down. I work on biographies and uphold that policy. I don't do edit warring, and I know the policy on it. I def know about ignoring all rules. And, as I noted above, I have looked over AfD and have absolutely no interest in it. So, eh, I don't know. But thanks all the same. LARA♥LOVE 05:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about you upholding BLP, I am talking about you finding information which is considered libelous and taking it out (i.e. controversial). Admins have to make many judgment calls on this. 3RR - some admins have to be a "mediating party" for excessive 3RRs, which can lead to protecting of articles. AFD/Blocking - AFD is kind of finding consensus on deleted articles, which integrates policy such as notability, POV, spam, etc. Blocking - You have made less than 10 reports to AIV and have did some vandalism revisions (less than 50) [mainly on June 12]. Most would say, edit count wouldn't matter in vandalism reverts. However, in this case, it does, since it expands your knowledge on what vandalism is and is not. If you want any practice in reverting vandalism, try U.S. school hours. Miranda 14:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to be an admin. That's the first thing. The second thing, I have a hell of a lot more than 50 vandalism reverts. Maybe I only did 40-some on June 12, but I've done RC patrolling several times, not to mention all the vandalism I revert on the some 150 pages on my watchlist and all that I encounter in my regular editing, which is mainly main space reviews of articles. So I don't need practice in reverting vandalism, and I certainly know how to spot it and warn appropriately, which I do in almost all cases, and my edit summaries say which one I used in any particular incident. As far as AIV goes, I've not encountered so many vandals that had reached their final warning. There were a couple instances where I was working with specific admins to get a vandal blocked. I don't feel it's necessary to have a few dozen reports on AIV to understand it. Use it twice and you've got it down. Anyway, thanks for clarifying, but I still don't really get it. I guess you're thinking I want to be admin, but in that case, you should read my comments like 5 up from this one. :) LARA♥LOVE 14:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not look at your entire contributions while making the previous statement. Yet, this was early in the morning. I will read the comments of this ER and comment appropriately at a later date. Miranda 02:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   My participation in Wikiproject Good articles is by far my passion. I am very proud of my contributions there. These include my GAC reviews, my most thorough GA/R critiques, WP:UCGA (the task force I created for clearing the backlog at Category:Uncategorized good articles which is now cleared), WP:GAPQ (the task force I created to raise and maintain the quality of the Good articles project and the articles listed in it), and my participation in the lastest GAC backlog elimination drive in which I reviewed 22 articles and dozens of quality reviews of other editors' article reviews. I am also proud of my work on Maroon 5 and Fall Out Boy. It was suggested in my first editor review that I work to bring these two articles to GA, so I did.

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?

   Conflicts over WP:GA/R are what sent me and other regular editors in the project on a wikibreak from it. This is where it began. It continued here and here. The user also attempted to undermine our efforts in the disputed review process, which can be seen here, here, here (this is where I started to lose my cool, but a pep talk from some fellow annoyed editors calmed me down and put my view in the right perspective), here, and here. It many instances, it appears as if he's gotten the last word and proved me wrong. However, in most instances, it was a matter of deciding it better to bite my tongue, so to speak, to avoid further conflict. There was also discussion via our talk pages initiated by me which can be seen here and here. A quick look at his talk page reveals the type of editor he is and the trouble others have in dealing with him. For that reason, I believe I handled myself well. Could I have handled it better? Certainly. However, that was my first such experience with such an editor and I definitely learned from the experience. I've encountered similar personalities since, and feel I can handle it well with constructive conversation or the intervention of others when the former seems to fail... and that's not to say RfC, but just dropping a line on a fellow editors talk page.