Wikipedia:Editor review/Chovain

Chovain
I've been around almost a year now. In that time I've had a number of interactions with other users that I've been proud of, and some that I know I could have handled better (ahh, the advantage of hindsight). I'm mainly looking for comments that will allow me to work with other editors more effectively, so I can rely a little less on my hindsight. Chovain(t 07:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * Review by delldot:
 * Hey, I think it's great that you've come looking for tips on how to get along better with other users. I'll provide what input I can.
 * You seem like a nice editor and you've clearly made significant contributions to the project, judging by the discussion on your talk page and its archive, where people thank you for your work and input.
 * It looks like when a new user asks you for help, you discuss the topic thoroughly with them, which is really good. You're also involved in new user adoption, which is also good.
 * It looks from your edits that you're familiar with policy.
 * A few pointers on disputes or potential disputes (OK, some of these might be blindingly obvious):
 * Be quick to admit fault and appologize. I can see from the fact that you've put in this ER request that you're willing to admit fault, wich is really great. I also see some instances on your talk page and its archive where you admit fault and appologize, so good work in this respect. How has your experience been with that, does it tend to defuse the conflict?  I have found that appologizing can frequently defuse disputes before they begin, and rarely hurts anything.  Humility is a really strong asset and yours will serve you well throughout your time here.
 * Be slow to revert; rather, make sure to discuss potentially large changes first. If you feel strongly that something must be reverted against someone's will, see if you can get someone else to do the reverting for you, an uninvolved party.  The best is to get consensus, though.  Frequently you can get someone to agree on a compromise by pointing to the relevant policies (WP:NPOV, etc) and explaining your stance.
 * If you see something good that another editor has done, don't be shy about complimenting them on it. When you do need to offer criticism (which certainly occurs), try to find something good about the person's work too, to compliment them on in the same post.  That way you don't come off as sounding completely hostile (since it's in writing, it's easier for people to misinterpret as hostile, since there are none of the voice or facial cues that we have in person).  I think you came off a little hostile from the getgo here.  I would have started the discussion off with a statement that I was open to compromise, directing them to the talk page, and thanking them for their involvement.  I probably would have reserved the post-signing criticism for another time or softened it by saying something like, "not to seem overly picky or critical, but I'd also request that you sign your posts so it's easier to tell who posts what".  I know this was a long time ago,  do you think your style has changed since then?
 * It seems like some of the trouble you've been involved in with other users had to do with them misinterpreting your statements as more hostile than they were meant (e.g. ). Before hitting save, reread your post and look for things that could be misinterpreted as hostile, and try to soften them. I can tell from some of your responses in this thread that you do try to be open, approachable, and humble, and I think you're doing very well with this.  Now, this is just me, but if someone had misinterpreted a post of mine like that, I would have appologized profusely, that's just what I do.  It seems to work, maybe because people just stay away from me after that because they wish I would shut up ;)  But I would have been like, "I'm so sorry my post wasn't clear that I didn't think that!  I certainly didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you, I was just trying to give advice."  That's just my style, I'm not afraid to lay it on thick ;) But it seems to have kept me pretty much out of trouble.
 * Avoid templates for sincere participants in the project, especially warning templates (e.g. drmmt), since they can be kind of insulting. I notice a few cases in your talk page archive where users protest that their contribs weren't vandalism, so be careful to be sure that it's vandalism if you leave a template (not that I'm not sometimes guilty of doing this). In that case I mentioned, a newb explained what they were doing and you removed the warning and then discussed it with them, which is good. Again, though, your part of the discussion came off as a little abrupt, especially since they were a new user that was clearly trying to help out, which we want to encourage as much as possible.  I get the feeling that you had no intention of being abrupt here, so this might be another case where rereading your post in search of things that could be seen as hostile could help.  I would have prefaced this discussion with "Oh, sorry I didn't understand what you were doing at first, thanks for working on emptying out that uncategorized category, that's useful work.  However, I'm not sure..."  This may just be me being overly circumspect though.  But I'm offering my opinion as it's the only one I have to offer ;)
 * You seem like a really nice person, I'm surprised you've been involved in so much conflict. Par for the course I guess. Basically I think you've been doing well. You're willing to admit fault and you appologize readily.  You work hard to work out disputes.  Others write that you have handled disputes "admirably" and thank you for resolving conflicts.  If this review has sounded critical it's only because I'm being ridiculously picky in order to give you as much advice as possible.  In wiki as in real life, I tend to be extremely cautious about offending people, so you might benefit from a review from someone who's more normal in this respect.  At any rate, you can try out these ideas and see how they work.  delldot | talk 22:39, 30 January 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?
 * I was involved in a somewhat extended reference dispute over at Caesarean Section. One of the editors was quite new.  I personally have no knowledge of medicine so, but felt that once we realised that the intentions of all the editors were good, we managed to work towards a version of the article that both the other parties were happy with.  I am aware that I could have done better with WP:AGF near the start of this one, but things turned out quite well.
 * I'm also slightly pleased with a dispute I tried to help sort out, although the debate got somewhat heated at times, and I felt I was being a little more aggressive than I'd like. In the end, I had to go ahead and do a special blend of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR to push a resolution through.  Only time will tell if it was successful, but I still feel I did a reasonable job of keeping the debate on topic.
 * 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?
 * Perhaps my most frustrating conflict was regarding an anonymous editor on the Gaddafi article. The article originally referred to the IRA as a terrorist organisation (it had been like that for almost a year).  The editor in question made this edit, which I reverted without much explanation.  The user then went on to make a number of POV (and semantically incorrect) edits, each of which I reverted.   .  Between each of those edits, I asked the user to discuss the wording on the talk page, and asked other editors for their opinion.    Unfortunately, I got no feedback from other editors, and the user kept trying new wordings until they finally removed any description of the IRA (which I was happy with).
 * Perhaps my most frustrating conflict was regarding an anonymous editor on the Gaddafi article. The article originally referred to the IRA as a terrorist organisation (it had been like that for almost a year).  The editor in question made this edit, which I reverted without much explanation.  The user then went on to make a number of POV (and semantically incorrect) edits, each of which I reverted.   .  Between each of those edits, I asked the user to discuss the wording on the talk page, and asked other editors for their opinion.    Unfortunately, I got no feedback from other editors, and the user kept trying new wordings until they finally removed any description of the IRA (which I was happy with).