User:Seicer/Open

Since I am held accountable for my actions, and want other editors to (hopefully) learn from my prior mistakes as an editor at Wikipedia, I present a list of my prior issues and some commentary, along with other relevant bits of information.


 * 1st editor review
 * AFD on unused highway: I became a little bit overzealous in defending the term unused highway which was being deemed a neologism. I had used this terminology for years on forums and newsgroups, along with many other roadgeeks. While my comments never became incivil or demeaning in any way, I felt that I was not putting forth the trust in one editor in particular.
 * Citation templates: My own stupidity. A user at Museum Plaza converted the references to citation templates, to which I protested on the basis that I was using the Harvard-style referencing system. CITET also made no preference either way of the citation templates, and I pushed that point a little too strongly. I publically apologized to the users involved for what was escalation over something very minor and we are good friends to this day.
 * External link discrimination: I was accused by Carl Rogers of discriminating against his web-site by removing links to his pages from various articles in relation to highway transport. While I am proud of how I handled the issue in regards to spam, it was very tiresome to have to deal with this user given that he has appeared on various newsgroups in total opposition to my character and web-sites (along with other people and their web-sites).
 * Long-term AGF/NPA abuse: This is actually still an open topic, but a particular user was being rather incivil and quite harsh, resorting to snips and even some minor personal attacks against other editors and in edit summaries. I was accused of "deaf discrimination" via e-mail, of applying false warnings, among other issues. I was not the only editor; another administrator was called out for warning the user. I received e-mails in regards to my recent mediation committee appointment and how I would be "reported" -- which never occurred. I'm proud of how I handled the situation, applying the general warning templates for AGF/NPA vios., archiving recent DIFFs on my talk page (for archival), and when it escalated to abusive e-mails, I took it to WQA but quickly changed my mind and took it to ANI.
 * Suspected sock puppets/CompScientist‎: This is still an open-topic, but varying IP socks of a blocked user have been making their way around various automotive articles.
 * Bernie Ward: When I was first introduced to the issues at WP:WQA, I noted the article was structurally deficient. Citations were missing or not formatted properly, and WP:BLP vios. were widespread. I took the extra initiative, beyond the scope of WQA, to completely rewrite the article, reformat the citations, and remove all BLP vios. and have been actively monitoring and editing the article ever sense. I am currently attempting to promote it to GA status through various improvements. There is currently much BLP vios. going around, mostly from various IP addresses and.

Votestacking
I believe there is evidence of canvassing or campaigning.

Regarding :
 * Bad faith assumption at my RfA.
 * Additional bad faith assumptions at my RfA, which even had disputed. See also:
 * I am "anti-science", and that's enough reason to begin stalking my edits?
 * Stalking
 * Additional bad faith assumptions
 * It's not enough that he has User talk:Orangemarlin and User talk:Orangemarlin.

Netkinetic

 * I came across at ANI, where I made the following comment regarding his disregard for non-administrator notices. I also made a general note in regards to the situation with a hatnote. It is archived here.
 * It seemed to spawn Netkinetic at my RfA, where he left numerous opposing comments and had been votestacking:   . Two warnings were disregarded. Spartz had actually voted in favor of my RfA (he was a blocking admin over my 3RR vio. in September 2007) and had made a complaint regarding votestacking.
 * first warning | second warning


 * Regarding stalking edits: . I had made a warning against Constantzeanu for incivility/personal attacks, and had a spelling error (yo). corrected the spelling error (yo->you), but it was reverted by Netkinetic on the basis that a user cannot edit another user's comments, period. Even for a spelling error, which was clearly noted at WQA, there was no way that Netkinetic, who has not been involved with WQA, would have known about my warning to Constantzeanu without watching either my edits or Chesser's.
 * I was "warned" by Netkinetic about my "incivility" regarding my revert of Netkinetic's edit:
 * And a note regarding my adminship.

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion
As mediator of Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion, I understand that it is my job to bring people together, but it incredibly difficult to do that with something in regards to Cold Fusion -- which has been described by (hereafter referred to as SA) and others to be something of an impossible feat. I have very little latitude to regulate disruption in the situation -- and when an administrator (GRBerry) requested my comment regarding SA at Arbitration that led to a 96h block, I was criticized by two editors and an administrator. He stated that it could lead to undue influence by having SA blocked, and that I needed to bring it up at via other, private matters.

But edit warring and disruptive editing is still edit warring and disruptive editing, no matter where it is at. By the time I took action, we had a day's worth of reverts and two versions of the lead of Cold Fusion in place, which only served to confuse and disengage other editors from contributing to the mediation. In the future, as I indicated privately to an administrator, I plan on bringing up future infractions to the Mediation Committee for further review and a second (or third) opinion.

What I've done on Cold Fusion is beyond what's required for a mediator. Usually, there is initial discussion, where I would make my recommendations, and it is brought up to a vote. But given that there is extreme polarization at Cold Fusion, and the reluctance of some editors to willfully contribute in an amicable manner towards a consensus, that would have been impossible to do so. But I've taken the task of actually engaging editors to cooperatively edit the lead and other sections, to bring about a revised edition that is satisfactory to most parties, and to implement it on the main article itself. And I've gone beyond what's required by actually editing the article itself, in order to provoke discussion and edits. In regards to provocation, it is in reference to adding in citations, rewriting portions for clarity and making non-controversial edits to bring activity and to showcase that yes, the article is not dead in the water.

And it's working. I'd like to see the process sped up a bit, but if it will result in a version that could lead to FA or GA status, which was an almost reality a year ago, then it will be worth it in the end. There will always be disgruntled editors on both sides, no matter what the overall consensus is; no matter what my recommendations are; no matter what the vote tallies up to be. It's a por situation as mediator, as I have received heat from both camps both on my talk page and in private e-mail.

Even if SA had arguments that were wholly reasonable and correct, his arrogant, controversial and hostile editing practices turned off editors from contributing to the Mediation.

If I had the opportunity to be Mediator of Cold Fusion today, knowing the difficulties that lay ahead, I would still take on the task. It's been a great learning experience, especially for an editor with 11,000+ edits, and has tested my patience numerous times and has brought me to the point of calling it quits on Wikipedia in general, after receiving numerous threats. But after burning out several months ago, I'll not let those petty differences fail me once again.

'''Notice: If you have come to my talk page to request that I be de-sysoped (???), to be recused of mediation, to be blocked/banned or that I forfeit editing at Wikipedia, you've come to the wrong place. Those notices will either be ignored or otherwise removed.'''