Wikipedia:Editor review/EnglishEfternamn

EnglishEfternamn
Greetings. I am EnglishEfternamn, a proud Wikipedian since about May of 2006. At this time, there is a great deal of information going on about me...much of it negative. The reasons for this are unclear, and I confess that I have been blocked a couple of times in the past couple of months. The hardest thing I have had to say thus far is what I am about to admit, that some of my editing practices may have been "in the wrong". I'm not sure I believe that a clear "right" or "wrong" even exist outside of human opinion, at least not in my recent conflicts, but I admit mistakes have been made on my part. These mistakes I have tried to mend in the past few days. You may notice if you look in my recent contributions, that I have sought out to more strongly seek consensus lately before making edits which I strongly feel are important to maintaining our valued NPOV. I have recently been told by number of enlightened admins that I need to changed my approach, and I have come to realise they are right. To these users, I extend my most sincere apologies and appeal to them for advice on how to improve my style.
 * Now, the reason I am seeking this editorial review is as simply followed: I hihgly wish to become an administrator. After the recent disputes and conflicts in question, I realise that it may take a very long time to achieve this end, but I prefer to believe it still can be done. What I would like to show everyone it may concern at this time, is that if this is achieved, I have the capability to be a rather excellent one; operating on only the highest standards of maintaining fairness, neutrality, thand diverse perspectives. If some of my edits have come off as intrusive, it is only because I have very strong feelings about changing content which I view to be one-sided. So I ask now, that you the editor may review my editing style, give suggestions, and show me what it will take to contribute to this encyclopedia conforming to the highest standards of quality. Thank you all for your patience, and I am looking forward to a good new start. --' EnglishEfternamn  talkcontribs 04:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)  '  EnglishEfternamn  talkcontribs 04:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Full marks for seeking out a review, it's not every user that decides that a fresh start is a good approach and I commend you for it. What follows are some general comments I hope you find helpful... I'm leaving the Not yet reviewed tag in place in the hopes that another editor will comment as well so you get the benefit of several perspectives.
 * First, it often helps to try to determine the norms of interaction at a place, and to try to conform to those norms. Part of that is learning the style of how people format things, believe it or not. You had a habit of using raw HTML markup rather than the wiki markup, which most of us use. So it threw off things like indenting, and your signature and so forth. I think you've cut back some, but you still might benefit from reviewing the help texts on basic formatting, believe it or not. Knowing the nuances of the :, *, # and ; characters when they are the first char (or first few chars) on a line really helps. If you format your comments better on talk pages, it makes it less likely that others will tune you out. That may sound odd or petty, but it's just human nature. Another part of learning the norms is that when folk give you references to things like the Manual of style, or assume good faith you should actually go do the reading.. even if you did before, maybe you missed something. That's part of being well prepared.
 * Second, you want to build up a reputation as a person that is pleasant and fun to work with. We're here to build an encyclopedia together, and many hands make light work, but the work is ligthest when we all have fun together. View your fellow editors first as collaborators, and contributors, and potential friends to raise a glass of good cheer with, not as adversaries. Assume good faith!!!! It sounds like a platitude but really, it truly matters. So try to think about what you say, before you actually press enter and save your words. If you think what you say might be taken as an attack on another editor, don't say it. Try another phrasing. Remember, in the encyclopedia itself, we present facts, not conclusions, and we let the reader draw their own conclusions. When you think another editor did something incorrect, give a diff, and explain why you think the thing itself is incorrect. Present the facts, not the conclusions. Discuss the action, not the person. Try to always look at things in the best light. What you at first blush perceive as a personal attack, may not be that. It may just be another editor trying to give you feedback, to help you. Hold out your hand and try to work with that editor, even if you are sure they don't mean well. Sometimes your hand may be slapped away, but oftentimes, it will not be... a hand extended may turn an adversary into a friend, I have seen it happen here time and time again, and I highly commend it. If you do not try, you will never find the good in the other editor.
 * And that brings me to Third, .... we work here on a basis of consensus. That means you should avoid reversion at all costs. While we technically have a three revert rule, I commend the practice of one revert or even, zero reverts Consider a revert by another editor (not a vandal, but another editor that you have every reason to believe is acting in good faith) as a chance to open a dialog, as a chance to work together harmoniously, in a spirit of cooperation and good faith... some of your statements in your answer to question 2 suggest that you still have a ways to go on points 2 and 3.
 * Fourth... there are big issues and small issues. How an article is spelt, (Commonwealth vs. American spelling) for example... that truly is a small issue. It's not worthy of getting too bent out of shape about, and it's best to let that sort of thing go. There are way too many articles that need lots and lots of well cited, well written expansion to get too worked up about small issues. Find things that don't have enough coverage, and cover them. For example, if Socialism is an interest of yours, find some historic figures in the european socialism movement that don't have articles, or only stubs, and do the research to flesh them out, or find some events that don't have enough coverage, and flesh those out... if you do that, it has many benefits. The world as a whole will benefit from filling in gaps in our coverage, and you will benefit from the personal satisfaction of having contributed new work, and you will also burnish your reputation as an editor that is a thoughtful, valuable contributor.
 * I hope this advice is of some help to you. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (PS, I should disclose that I was one of the three admins that have at some point blocked you... ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

From Redvers
I've had little interaction with you, other than to have to whack you twice (as you reference below) for your inability to drop a subject when others request that you do so.

Obviously, this leads me to ask why you seek administrator tools. So far, you have done little or nothing in the way of the tasks administrators are asked to do. Vandalwhacking, XFD and discussion of policy are all at a minimum... In fact, discussion of any sort is at a minimum as it appears you brook little repost if you don't agree with people (cf the deletion of items from your talk page and the above complaint about my actions on your horse carcass beating escapades).

So, what do you hope to achieve from being given two extra buttons and one extra function (protect, delete and block respectively)? Nothing you do so far would seem to require those options, but I could be missing something. Remember, adminship doesn't confer status - good editing over an extended period is the only thing that does.

That said, your block record and your recent clashes don't preclude (or shouldn't preclude) eventual administration tools. Looking at your most recent 1000 edits: you edit in some contraversial areas, so will attract controversy. This is not a bad thing, although your handling of the fallout is something you should watch - WP:AGF as much as you can at all times; avoid WP:OWN issues whenever they appear (I advocate taking a deep breath!).

Because your edit field is narrow (again, from the last 1000 edits only) you might like to spend some quality time with the wonderful User:SuggestBot. He/She/It will give you some articles related to your current editing that will help you push out a bit. I'm generally to be found being in favour of editors (and admin candidates) being specialists - Wikipedia has more generalists than specialists and could use the latter better. But a broader view wouldn't harm and could benefit your growth as an editor.

Finally, policy is good but policy for policy sake is bad. Don't be afraid of ignoring all rules and being bold now and again. If you're sure you're right (or have right on your side) then remember that it's better to ask forgiveness than seek permission. Don't spend too much time as a policy wonk, using various WP:s to beat people over the head with: other editors may also be being bold or ignoring all rules and you shouldn't try to make them fit arbitary editing patterns (in other words, if you need to cite rules or guidelines in your edit summary, you're probably not editing harmoniously. Don't let that stop you from either activity, but keep a sense of proportion).

There's nothing I've seen from you that suggests you're a bad editor and nothing that I don't like that can't be worked on quickly and easily (well, maybe not that easily... you may have to adapt!). All in all, more good than bad, some things to work on, a lot to be proud of. 〈 RED VEЯS 〉 21:28, 5 February 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?
 * Yes. I am particularly pleased with the expansion of former stubs by myself, these are as followed: articles pertaining to the video games of Test Drive II:The Duel, and Super Strike Eagle. The reason I am pleased with these articles is that obscure things, like older video games need to be adequately covered as well. One source of criticism of Wikipedia is the belief that Wikipedia is "biased in coverage". I believe this to be largely true and the expansion of stubs is the only way to remedy this problem.
 * 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?
 * Absolutely, in recent weeks, I have tried tirelessly to make serious changes to the Socialism article for the reason that I feel it is somewhat un-neutral in its format. The users who dominate the articles in question have not been all that receptive to my proposal for changes, and a couple of them, who shall remain nameless have levied personal attacks against me. These actions were overlooked by the administrators. I was then blocked by an administrator and it I reported it to the Admin noticeboard on the grounds that I felt it was unfair, at least at the time. I now know that the user was just in his blocking, and am thankful he did not seek an indefinite block as some had reportedly requested. But it caused me unspeakable frustration when one particular admin threatened that I would be blocked if I did not "step away from the horse carcass". See WP:ANI. Such language is unadministrative, crude, and completely unnecessary, and I don't think it would have even been fair to block someone for request a review of an admin's actions. But I am willing to put all that behind me at this point. All I wish to do at this point is become a more valued contributor, one that other users view as useful, and I request that other users tell me how I can do this.
 * Absolutely, in recent weeks, I have tried tirelessly to make serious changes to the Socialism article for the reason that I feel it is somewhat un-neutral in its format. The users who dominate the articles in question have not been all that receptive to my proposal for changes, and a couple of them, who shall remain nameless have levied personal attacks against me. These actions were overlooked by the administrators. I was then blocked by an administrator and it I reported it to the Admin noticeboard on the grounds that I felt it was unfair, at least at the time. I now know that the user was just in his blocking, and am thankful he did not seek an indefinite block as some had reportedly requested. But it caused me unspeakable frustration when one particular admin threatened that I would be blocked if I did not "step away from the horse carcass". See WP:ANI. Such language is unadministrative, crude, and completely unnecessary, and I don't think it would have even been fair to block someone for request a review of an admin's actions. But I am willing to put all that behind me at this point. All I wish to do at this point is become a more valued contributor, one that other users view as useful, and I request that other users tell me how I can do this.