Wikipedia:Editor review/CrispMuncher

CrispMuncher
I am putting myself forward for review after receiving criticism for my handling of what I considered to be a clear cutting external link spamming case. You can read a summary of my position at if you want for further background and my reasoning. As I indicated there I believe my actions to be justified but I request this review for a better understanding of what the general feeling is within the community. To boil it down to two specific questions:


 * Did I act in an unjustified manner towards User:Gloden?
 * Was I correct to ignore AGF when I considered the motives of that editor were not aligned with the interests of the project? CrispMuncher (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I don't really have any central masterplan to my edits: they are spread over a wide variety of articles. I suspect the single greatest area I have worked in has been on various computer hardware articles.  No work I have done really stands out - if I had to pick anything it would probably be my work of software flow control, which I believe I can still claim primary authorship of, even if it has been extensively copyedited since my last significant contribution.  That article does lack references but I took a rather pointless stub and turned it into a useful outline of the topic.  It'll never gain FA status or anything like that but it in my view it does present a complete picture of what software flow control is and in a clear and concise manner.
 * 1) Have you been in any disputes 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?
 * Yes, I will refer to the specific dispute mentioned above that is my motivation for seeking this review. More generally if changes are made I disagree with but there is clearly consensus for I tend to forget about it for a week or so.  When I come back to it it often doesn't seem so bad.  In any case, even if I still think a change has made things worse I tend to view going against consensus as ultimately futile - any individual lacks infinite patience so the community as a whole usually wins.
 * Yes, I will refer to the specific dispute mentioned above that is my motivation for seeking this review. More generally if changes are made I disagree with but there is clearly consensus for I tend to forget about it for a week or so.  When I come back to it it often doesn't seem so bad.  In any case, even if I still think a change has made things worse I tend to view going against consensus as ultimately futile - any individual lacks infinite patience so the community as a whole usually wins.

 Reviews 

I will say that for this review I will leave most of your edits untouched and concentrate on the incident.

Firstly I will say that you were doing what you thought was right, so don't take this incident too hard. I looked at the section of the Admin Incident Noticeboard for this case, and I might push you were right on policy and the actions taken because of it. It is was not evident that Gloden was trying to improve the article.However, I do believe that that was the case, but he didn't know how to do it. His refusal to acknowledge policy was the gravest of his errors, but it is not uncommon for a newcomer to question or be outraged at policies or rules he doesn't understand. The situation was handled correctly, and per policy. I only notice one place where you went wrong:


 * But calling me a spammer because I have participated in pivital in the scroll saw community. In my talk page: "As I said, I refuse to allow you to portray yourself as the wronged party being silenced by the "Wiki Masters" (your words, not mine). Ultimately you are a spammer pushing a site that you have a personal involvement in. Let us not forget that. CrispMuncher (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)"

It is here that the main problem lies. I can see why you calling him a spammer might have angered him, and directed him away from Wikipedia. As he thought he was being helpful,he did not like to be called a spammer. He probably doesn't understand the Wikipedia definition of spammer, and might have interpreted it in a different way than most experienced editors would react. He understood it as an insult and that is why he left.

I see only one piece of advice that could be given here : you should assume good faith, especially with newcomers, and avoid anything that could be interpreted as a personal attack.

Should you have any questions, you can leave me a message at my talk page.

Acebulf (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)