Wikipedia:Editor review/Bwilkins

Bwilkins
I have been here for a while now. I have worked on everything from New Page Patrol, Recent Changes, creating stubs, creating Most Wanted Articles, welcoming a lot of new users, using Twinkle for Vandalism reversion, AfD's, AN/I, and (as of the last month or so) most commonly WQA. I like to think I'm benefiting the project, but sometimes I wonder... BMW (drive)  00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 

 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?
 * I honestly feel my work in WQA is most helpful. With a background in conflict resolution, I feel I'm providing editors with a positive service.  Admittedly, I have opened myself up to attacks, but that's the nature of trying to help
 * 1) 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?
 * There are 2 I can think specifically of that continue to concern me. The first involved a young editor who I tried to help with a lot of common sense via a Mediation Cabal case.  The second (and most recent) involves someone whose work I actually supported, but then I became a victim of some vitriolic talk page entries.  I tried to rationalize with this user, provide proof, but eventually went the WQA route myself, which was unfortunately shied away from by other editors, likely due to the fact that "racism" was involved.  At this point, I am contemplating my next step.  I will continue to use my conflict resolution skills (and reasonably thick skin) to resolve future issues
 * Hi Bwi' What would you do if your best friend here on Wikipedia (who, let's just say, is established on here) had sock puppets and lots of them, and you were the only one who you though knew about them, what would you do? Good luck. You have my vote when your RFA comes around.  SteelersFan 94 21:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't see this earlier. Socks are, of course, only socks if they are being used to evade policy (such as blocks, !votes).  There are some legitimate uses of alternate accounts. I guess I would need to have additional information about what these additional accounts were being used for ... "online friendship" does not modify the requirement to play by the rules.  ►  BMW  ◄  22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't see this earlier. Socks are, of course, only socks if they are being used to evade policy (such as blocks, !votes).  There are some legitimate uses of alternate accounts. I guess I would need to have additional information about what these additional accounts were being used for ... "online friendship" does not modify the requirement to play by the rules.  ►  BMW  ◄  22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Review by PhilKnight
Today on the incident noticeboard, you said that good faith edits to an article that you happened to disagree with were the equivalent of vandalism. To say that your comments were unhelpful would be an understatement. PhilKnight (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is a review of almost 3 years of editing? I think you need to re-read the comments and the context around them.  Some changes to an article were made that completely changed a meaning of phrases in the article - that was what my comment was in regards to.  To completely twist the meaning of a phrase in an article (that makes it into something potentially inflammatory) could in many cases most certainly be considered to be equivalent in spirit to vandalism.  Note my terminology in ANI and here.  ►  BMW  ◄  22:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The edits were in good faith, and just because you have a different point of view, it doesn't mean you should make overly dramatic comments on the incident noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Inflammatory? There's been 3 posts in the ensuing 6 hours since.  That's hardly inflammatory.  If you disagree, then this is something to discuss on my talkpage, not on Editor Review.  Or is your review "Wow BMW, good work in WQA all these months, sorry about the abuse you took.  I have only 1 concern about your 3 years history - and I may have misunderstood it" because THAT is what Editor Review is for.   ►  BMW  ◄  22:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comments were overly dramatic, which is unhelpful. If you can't accept this, then ok, but that is the reality of the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Placing your argument HERE instead of discussing like normal is what's call "overly dramatic". You'd rather trash the reputation of a good editor than discuss it and find out that perhaps you were mistaken.  ►  BMW  ◄  22:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an editor review, you should be open to criticism. PhilKnight (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am open to criticism. Your concern is a misreading of a situation, leading to drama which you've decided to take out on me instead of discussion.  To each their own, I suppose.  ►  BMW  ◄  12:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, however I hope you will take on board the criticism, and be more careful in your remarks. PhilKnight (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you even read the clarification on ANI, or are you error-free? You're the only one taking my comments to an extreme level.   ►  BMW  ◄  12:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think in future you should be far more careful in your remarks on the incident noticeboard. Also, you seem to be very reluctant to take on board any form of criticism, despite this being an editor review. PhilKnight (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (outdent) I have no problem with critiques, as long as they're based on reality. As noted, if you were this confused about my comment, the normal place to discuss it is my talk page like any normal editor - I even attempted to generate the conversation on yours.  As there was a whole, whopping (err, add 9, carry the 2) ... one person with a concern about my post, your over-reaction (and obvious misunderstanding) is clearly something that should have been dealt with one-to-one in order to avoid cluttering an editor review with your obviously erroneous reading/interpretation.  Thanks again for your input, and I'll keep it in mind as long as you keep in mind the correct place to discuss confusion issues - this is, after all, a collaborative project.  ►  BMW  ◄  16:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wanted to make sure that a link to the discussion that was being referred to went here as well. ►  BMW  ◄  18:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Review by Colonel Warden

 * I have recently encountered BMW at WP:WQA. The details of the incident are unimportant - a spat at AFD -  but I formed the impression that BMW does not readily assume good faith.  This seems to be borne out by the motto on his user page at The KEYS to Wikipedia according to USER:Bwilkins: "Assume good faith, unless the other person is possibly clearly an idiot".  I further note that he seems to display ownership behaviour at WP:WQA which, so far as I can see, is not justified by his being a good conciliator or model of behaviour.  These are just initial impressions which I would have allowed to gell further but I notice that an editor is quitting Wikipedia at this place and BMW seems content to push him out rather than healing the breach - see WP:WQA.  So, before it's too late, I draw attention to this matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I appreciate all comments, let's put some background/context here as well. On the same WQA page is a complaint against User:Colonel Warden where I did agree that at times, Colonel Warden is a bit belligerant.  Some earlier similar comments occurred in an ANI situation some time ago.  In the complaint he mentions above I have worked extremely hard to educate User:aaronjhill on wikipedia policy related to WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and others, rather than provide any warnings whatsoever to a new user who seems truly confused by processes.  I have gone out of my way to assist.  The user instead is continuing a fight against another editor (who removed an image), and has decided to retire, instead of heeding my attempts to assist him.  ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 17:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No doubt you see much bad behaviour at WP:WQA which would require the patience of a saint to bear with good grace. I've rarely visited and so don't know much of what goes on there.  I comment specifically in this case because it seems bad that we should lose an editor over what seemed to be mostly a minor content dispute in the heated area of Polish-German relations.  My impression is that your style is to be brusque and scolding and wonder whether you have perhaps burnt out there due to over-exposure.  Your user page has a three-step programme for resolving WQA issues but this does not seem to be followed.  This seems good in bring editors back to the substantive issues rather than dwelling on who said what and how.  I suppose that, ideally, editors should be coached in dispute resolution, being shown how to settle their differences without cross words.  Could more have been done to convince User:aaronjhill that the process was not just about roasting him?  Colonel Warden (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I also address your wonderful quote from my Userpage: "Assume good faith, unless the other person is possibly clearly an idiot" You forgot that there is a link from the word idiot which is vital to the context of the statement.  I assume you followed that link before using it as a supposed piece of "evidence".  I will also add that you recently replied and agreed with my message on the user's page noted above about trying to keep that person's "passion for editing" on board.  Thanks again for this,and the opportunity to clarify.  ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 16:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)