Wikipedia:Editor review/Basket of Puppies 2

Basket of Puppies 2
I wish to be reviewed in order to receive constructive feedback and criticism as to my content contributions and inter-editor relationships Basket of Puppies  05:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I have created two Good Articles, the latter I am attempting to elevate to Featured Article status. I am a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador to Harvard University and Boston University. I was trained for this position by the Wikimedia Foundation in person. The major aspect of this responsibility it to attend the classes of Professor David Weil, lecture to the students about Wikipedia, introduce them to the principals and basics of Wikipedia and to guide them along their assignments. There are approximately 25 students in this class, not including Prof Weil, all of whom I am the mentor for. I work with them in person, on-wiki and on email in order to assist them to Wikipedia. I've now given two 80 minute lectures on the principals of Wikipedia and introduction on editing Wikipedia. The feedback I've gotten has been terrific. On 1 Feb 2011 during a major blizzard in Boston I got on my bike in the torrential snow and rode across the BU bridge, while trying not to wipe out or get hit by a car. I think my dedication to Wikipedia is pretty solid. User:Alin (Public Policy) of the Wikimedia Foundation said: "I think we should make a bumper sticker that has a photo of you biking across the BU bridge in the blizzard, and the slogan on the sticker should read something like: 'Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors: ain't nothing gonna stop us.'" 
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * I fully and readily admit that I have gotten caught up in the heat of the moment while in disputes with fellow editors. It has caused me to make errors in judgement and unnecessary drama. I wish, in earnest, to avoid these in the future and gain the community's neutral feedback to know in I was truly off-kilter. Only by identifying how I was off will I be able to avoid it in the future.

 Reviews  You are a bright passionate editor. You seem to put lots of hours of work and thought into your current roles. That passion and time commitment has lead you into some issues. I think it may be helpful If you could find a way to step back and take a day or two away from wikipedia when you are in disputes, especially when its a CA sort of thing. A new perspective is a great tool to have when working through they system. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  &#124;  Review Me  02:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Review By Guerillero


 * Review By TeleComNasSprVen
 * There's been a few mishits here and there but I think overall, with your level of contributions and two Good Articles outstanding you have been truly a net positive to the project. Content contributions are okay, but interactions with a perhaps some fellow editors create bumps along the way. It's not good to have your excellent work put into the project and to put your blood and sweat into it, only to be shot down because you do not have enough people helping you or some trivial misunderstandings block the path to success.
 * I do not know if it is the stress of being a Wikipedia ambassador that gets it, but I do know that things like this under better circumstances should generally be avoided whenever possible. Even if MZMcBride was being a bit incivil during the "bot" episode, but a single reminder to him at WP:WQA or just an ANI post was sufficient for him, and it didn't have to escalate to ArbCom. Neither was the comment against Casliber necessary.
 * However, just because I say this is no reason for you to let these things bog you down. Instead, you should focus on reminding yourself to improve your weaknesses where possible, like the interaction with others, and a collaborative editing environment goes a long way, as well as sharing your strengths and expertise in areas where they are needed or wanted. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  00:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Basket of Puppies, I feel compelled to comment here based on seeing this comment you left in TreasuryTag's editor review: "You are abrasive, rude, prone to WP:WIKILAWYERING and stir up entirely unnecessary drama." Having just seen you do a great deal of Wikilawyering at an AfD, and stir up entirely unnecessary drama at both AN/I and the arbitrator's noticeboard, I feel you would do well to turn your critical eye towards your – rather than other editors' – editing. I say this not as someone who has a beef with you (you may recall I was the first to step to your defense in the now-deleted RfA of yours that was transcluded without your consent), but as a neutral observer. If you are using this editor review to gain feedback on things you can do better, the number-one thing I can suggest is to make a greater effort to defuse, rather than escalate, difficult situations. If you would like examples of this, I will be happy to provide them. Best, 28bytes (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)