I also have read and understand how the process of testing. I also have posted feedback. Here are a few of the feedback:

[https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-0145/kernel-3.1.7-1.fc16 kernel]

[https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-0079/papyon-0.5.6-1.fc16 papyon]

[https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-0135/pptp-1.7.2-14.fc16 pptp]

[https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-0112/gedit-3.2.6-1.fc16 gedit]

You have satisfied the requirements to be a proventester so I am happy to sponsor you. I see that you have already applied for proventester group membership in FAS so I have already sponsored you. Welcome to the proventester group.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rss/rss2.0?comments=True&user=arifiauo

I'd like to request more verbose comments, especially with regard to whether anything has been tested specifically. Only posting "works for me" everywhere in quick succession is not too helpful.

@ arifiauo : I urgently request you to respond to my earlier comment.

Your latest activity in bodhi is just another flood of "works for me" plus a few more "works for me" where you meant to copy a -1 posted by an earlier tester. You corrected that later, but multiple mistakes like that give less reason to believe that you conduct tests painstakingly. You even copied a -1 I added to a wrong package without giving any details other than "Does not work". Please do respond there, too.

Replying to [comment:3 mschwendt]:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rss/rss2.0?comments=True&user=arifiauo

I'd like to request more verbose comments, especially with regard to whether anything has been tested specifically. Only posting "works for me" everywhere in quick succession is not too helpful.

When I asked for a mentor, no one tells how to make comments. So I just gave "Works for me". And keep in mind, I was just commenting on the packages I tried. I do not comment anywhere, not as you say.

Replying to [comment:4 mschwendt]:

@ arifiauo : I urgently request you to respond to my earlier comment.

Your latest activity in bodhi is just another flood of "works for me" plus a few more "works for me" where you meant to copy a -1 posted by an earlier tester. You corrected that later, but multiple mistakes like that give less reason to believe that you conduct tests painstakingly. You even copied a -1 I added to a wrong package without giving any details other than "Does not work". Please do respond there, too.

I do not understand the details of a program running, I just know it works well or not. If I need to get the mentoring, I am ready. If I'm not a good proventester, I am also ready to be fired. What is clear I am just trying to give feedback on what I've tried.

Replying to [comment:4 mschwendt]:

@ arifiauo : I urgently request you to respond to my earlier comment.

If you reply to a comment, use the reply button or say a name only, do not use "@", this is not twitter.

I'm not familiar with twitter. The '@' (at) notation predates twitter. It makes it more obvious (and more readable) that some person is being addressed and that the word after the '@' is a username and not an acronym such as 'afaics' or 'iirc'.

[...]

With regard to the mentoring, I think the entire proventesters area is still experimental and a constant learning-process also for the mentors. Guidelines are updated as new conclusions are drawn.

My concerns are that you never give any hint about what you've tested or how much you've used a new package. It's always a plain "works for me", even for packages that are not in the repos yet, which means you must have downloaded them from koji. If you've done that, you've never mentioned it. In many other cases you vote +1 a few hours already after a package has been pushed to the repos. And you do that for an overwhelming (!) variety of packages (a multitude I cannot sum up here). How much of that stuff do you really use?

[...]

Then there's this:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Proven_tester#Major_bugs

Still, at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-17155 you have not explained your -1. As subsequent testers are expected to retest for issues reported by previous testers, you need to follow the guidelines and post details. I cannot take back my earlier -1 because it is not known what issue you've found.

When you originally stated in your first entry to this ticket that "I also have read and understand how the process of testing" - I believed that you had indeed read the details in the provestester wiki entry at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Proven_tester

In that web page it states:

"Feedback procedures

Since a proven tester's karma determines whether an update is allowed to be promoted, they follow special procedures based on the severity of regressions they encounter. Use Fedora Easy Karma - see the page for instructions on installing and using this tool - to list all installed packages from the updates-testing repository and allow to file feedback on each one at a time. Note that you can use the parameter --critpath-only, which will cause f-e-k to list only unapproved critical path updates, if you are short on time for testing. If you do not use this parameter, pay particular attention to updates whose description notes that they are critical path updates.

Positive feedback
Usually, you will be able to post positive feedback on an update. If you do not encounter any of the situations below, and find that the update passes the tests mentioned above and does not cause you any other problems, you should leave positive feedback and note that you were able to use the package successfully and did not notice any significant problems.

Major bugs
If you identified any serious problems in your testing and were able to identify the update responsible, post negative feedback for that update. If possible, please file a bug report on the problem and link to the bug report in your feedback message. A good feedback message quickly and clearly identifies the behavior change and the cause, if you were able to determine it.

Minor bugs
If you identify a problem which is minor in nature and does not impede the actual critical path functionality, please do not post negative feedback. Post neutral or positive feedback with a note of the issue encountered (and a link to a bug report if appropriate).

Previously reported bugs
If your testing uncovers no problems but you see that another tester has identified a serious problem with the package, please try to replicate their problem, and post negative feedback if you are now able to confirm it. If you are not able to confirm the problem but you suspect this may be because you cannot recreate the necessary conditions, please post neutral feedback noting that you were unable to duplicate the problem. Only post positive feedback if you are sure your testing indicates the other reporter's negative feedback is a mistake.

Update does not fix a bug it claims to
If you find an update does not fix a bug it claims to fix, this is not usually a case where you should file negative karma. Only file negative karma if that is the only change in the update. If an update claims to fix five bugs, but only fixes four of them, it is not helpful to post negative karma as this may result in the update being rejected, which does not help those suffering from the bug that wasn't fixed, and hurts those suffering from the bugs that are fixed. When you test an update that claims to fix a particular bug and doesn't, but does not have any of the issues listed as meriting negative or neutral feedback above, please leave positive feedback with a note that the bug in question is not fixed, or neutral feedback with such a note if the issue prevents you from otherwise properly testing the update.

Update does not fix a bug it does not claim to
Please do not leave negative feedback on an update simply because it does not fix a bug that also existed prior to the update, and which the update does not claim to fix. Doing so serves no purpose: preventing the update from being released doesn't help you when the already-released version of the package also has the bug. In this case, making it harder for the update to be approved only serves to prevent other users from getting the fixes for their bugs.

Unfamiliar packages
If you are not sure what the component does or how to test it, do not post positive or negative feedback. For critical path updates, if the above general tests of booting, network functionality and update functionality identified no problems, it is fine to leave a neutral feedback message noting that you were able to boot the system and perform critical path tasks with the update installed. This is generally not useful for non-critical path updates, however: please only comment on them if you are familiar with the package and able to test it directly."

Please will you make sure that you indeed have read this properly and apply any comments to testing according to these guidelines.

When you test a package you should install it - and then check whenever possible whether any bugs that were reported to be fixed are indeed fixed in your own test system. Please also ensure that you run a package for long enough that no new bugs appear in the system after the package has been installed.

It is also useful for some packages to say whether you are using x86 or x86_64 since in some cases bugs were only reported for one architecture. In general for unfamiliar packages note the guidance that "For critical path updates, if the above general tests of booting, network functionality and update functionality identified no problems, it is fine to leave a neutral feedback message noting that you were able to boot the system and perform critical path tasks with the update installed." - on other words if you have not done detailed tests but your system runs with no apparent regressions then say so and give neutral karma, not +1.

I think it would be appreciated by testers and developers if you stick within these published guidelines, and I am repeating these here as your mentor.

I will look forward to more useful comments and appropriate karma in your bodhi comments from now on, and I hope these suggestions will be helpful in your further testing as a proventester.

Replying to [comment:9 mcloaked]:

I will look forward to more useful comments and appropriate karma in your bodhi comments from now on, and I hope these suggestions will be helpful in your further testing as a proventester.

Ok, from now I'll try to give good feedback and in accordance with the guidelines. I'm not going to make the feedback again for a while, I wanted to learn it first. Thanks for the advice, it really helps.

Thank you for your interest in helping the Fedora Project QA team. I'm afraid Proven Testers is currently closed to applicants as explained at the top of ​the [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Proven_tester Proven Tester] page. The group has no function as things stand, so it is "in hibernation". We may resurrect it when Bodhi 2.0 is released.

This issue has been migrated to Fedora Forge:
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/quality/tickets/issues/268

Please continue any further discussion there.