Wikipedia:Editor review/Erik

Erik
I've been active with various film articles, mostly those that are coming up. My contributions have generally been in the production area, and I also keep a sort of a watchlist for User:Erikster/Future articles to gauge the build-up to announced films' actual productions. I also consider myself a fairly bold editor, though I'm not sure if my attitude is too cavalier. I've tried to explain policies to dissenters of my reverts. I also hunt down vandalism and have pursued trails of linkspam with the spammer's contribution list. Basically, I just want to know how I'm doing as a Wikipedia editor. Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

This series of edits will not be well-thought of if you ever wish to be nominated for adminship:


 * 17:19, 7 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Tenebrae (film) (Revert POV re-cat.)
 * 17:18, 7 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day (Revert violation of own POV... your re-cats are not the gospel truth, especially without consensus.)
 * 17:18, 7 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Toy Story (Revert removal of importance due to bad-faith removal just because someone disagreed with your recat.)
 * 17:17, 7 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Pulp Fiction (film) (Don't remove the importance just because someone disagrees with your own perspective of re-classification.)
 * 17:16, 7 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Platoon (film) (Revert... where's YOUR justification of the re-classification?)

First of all - do not engage in revert wars of the tit-for-tat variety. If user A says "i'm changing this because its not x" dont revert saying "i'm changing it back because A's edit is not x". Dont descend to that level. Keep level-headed discussion on the talk page. Reversion are for vandalism only, not content disputes. Nobody comes out well from edit-warring, no matter what their intentions.

Dont assume bad faith. Your edit summaries clearly do so. One even specifically cites "bad faith" - this can be construed as a personal attack.

When discussing a topic, abuse is never acceptable: "You are charging people who revert you for POV and OWN, when it seems that you are having your own POV in choosing how film articles should be re-categorized. And please don't try to become a neutral party all of a sudden, when you were clearly going on your re-categorization mission before you encountered resistance. " This kind of smug ad hominem arguing is NEVER acceptable under any circumstances. Its a prime violation of WP:CIVIL and indeed WP:DICK.

You must remain neutral. This means not favouring your wiki-friends over strangers in content disputes, just because "you know them". Offline strategising with wiki-friends to "win" arguments is frowned upon. Don't treat wikipedia as a "battle" to "win" - WP:NOT a MMORPG. Don't assume an "anon" is a vandal, or a "lesser" editor. Remember, there are many sysops, admins, developers etc who prefer to edit anonymously - indeed, many of us choose to use this method to weed out disruptive or combative registered editors.

This is not an acceptable apology for making an editing mistake. "You said X so i'm gonna say X back" is childish playground nonsense. Please grow up. If you made a mistake, put an honest apology on their talk page and take it on the chin. You failed to do any of those things.

Finally, after the dust had settled, it seems you *were* willing to discuss in a less combative way. Your initiation of a possible solution debate shows signs of maturity and a willingness to work to improve wikipedia rather than using it as a battleground with "turfs" that you WP:OWN. If you continue down that path, you can undo the damage caused by this unnecessary spat and recover enough to be considered in the future.

Of course, you're free to blank this review, but doing so will indicate a lack of openness on your part that may count against you. You will be certainly better thought of if can show willingness to link an ostensibly "negative" editor review from your userpage. Especially if you can prove you have learned the lessons. Bye for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.139.211 (talk • contribs) 18:43, February 7, 2007


 * Thank you for your input. While I may not agree with all of it, I will not debate these issues with you here. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to get it. When you asked to be reviewed, you solicited others' opinions. There's nothing to debate here, or anywhere, about User:82.2.139.211's comments. That's the sort of aditude that will look *really* bad if you're ever up for adminship. Cut it out, you still have things to learn or you wouldn't be looking for review. Don't just accept what makes you feel good and reject what you disagree with. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true; in fact, it probably means it's something you can learn from. 132.161.187.25 09:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please consider that the initial reviewer may not be right in all his accusations. While I don't feel that I presented the most civil behavior possible, I still stand by my actions in preserving the status quo, as the editor never explained to me how he justified his own adjustment of the importance scale.  Never being a fan of the importance scale, I attempted to bring the issue to WikiProject Films that day to determine if it could be removed in its entirety.  Unfortunately, though, nobody is interested in undertaking that major adjustment.


 * Additionally, I'm disappointed that the reviewer chose to quickly review me a mere handful of hours after the conflict at hand, and also made harsh accusations in the belief that he was totally justified in his actions and words, where I wasn't. In addition, the lack of registration of a username for either him and you is a concern to me as well (and I hope both of you are not the same person; that's what makes it a concern).  As there is little edit history to substantiate the backgrounds of either you or him, it's difficult to determine if the reviews are put forth honestly by an editor who has clearly worked on Wikipedia for a while.  While I don't wish to limit dialogue from anonymous editors, the lack of identity makes me concerned about the authenticity of such statements, which I feel are borderline harassive toward me.  I ask you not to address the manner further, as unlike your edit summary said, this was not "A review", but a persistence of the first one by a different(?) editor.  I allowed the first review to remain despite its aggressive nature because I don't believe I handled that situation to the best of my ability, but I also took a moment to note that I was not in full agreement with his accusations of my actions. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer to remain anonymous as I edit, and I'm behind a DHCP server. I assure you that I am the person who wrote the response to your response to the first anonymous reviewer, who I am not. Again, this is not the place to rehash old debates. You asked for review, now accept it graciously. 132.161.33.98 19:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (Editor has harassed me twice, thus I do not consider his opinion valid in my review. 1, 2.)


 * Please don't command me to do something that is entirely up to me. The review, while flawed, did help me understand how to be more civil in dealing with new editors, so that notion is appreciated.  However, the harassing tone of the review was unnecessary and could have been delivered much more neutrality. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but some of these anon reviews read like sour grapes from users involved in personal disputes. In any case, Erikster should have been made an admin a long time ago. He mentors new users, invests a lot of time into improving film articles, and has a reputation for neutrality and assuming good faith. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 14:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Viriditas here (and that is saying something, ideed). Erik's contributions to Wikipedia extend well past simply improving articles. He mentors new users to create better editors, taking the time to explain policies and working to head off problems before they occur. He is good natured, and his interests range widely. Importantly, when he doesn't know something, he says so. He then seeks out the answer to that question so as to provide an answer. He is an example of what a good editor is. He is what I expect an administrator to be.Arcayne 15:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

An impressive array of resourcefulness, talent and versatility beneath a frequently-prickly initial demeanor. Erik is deserving of admin status (and indeed holds himself to an administrative/mentor-level standard across multiple disciplines, including but not limited to consistency, purity/quality of research, and comic/sci-fi canon), though I suspect softening his characteristic sharp edge(s) will be a lifelong endeavor. --Sskoog 03:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I interacted with Erikster regarding an issue on the Sunshine (2007 film) page. Erikster was clear in his communication, had good knowledge of relevant policies, and was quick to graciously conclude the issue when the relevant actions were completed. I hope we can 'work together' again on other topics. Anchoress 23:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your deletions to multiple movie articles based on your opinion that United States movie ratings are biased and indiscriminate information 64.24.5.67 14:59, 21 April 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've been pleased with how I've brought The Fountain up to GA status mostly on my own, and I'm proud of tracking articles of upcoming films to correct bad information. I've also tested the waters of working on articles of already released films, such as Spider-Man and Batman Begins, but it is still a work in progress.  I'm currently keeping a close eye on Spider-Man 3 and The Dark Knight, two articles that were in terrible shape this past summer, and I feel like I've helped enormously in making them high quality today.
 * 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?
 * A couple of instances come to mind. When I was working on The Fountain, I had a bit of a heated edit war with another editor regarding the structuring of production information.  There were some changes of his that I had found unreasonable, and when I tried to improve on them, I found myself reverted.  I tried to contact him on his talk page, but he didn't respond for some reason.  The situation didn't escalate, and I made use of his beneficial changes while tidying up the ones that didn't seem as useful.  The other instance was regarding the removal of Myspace blogs.  Several film directors have Myspace blogs that they use to share production information, but an editor was removing links using AWB, citing that Myspace and blogs were not valid sources.  I tried to present my argument to him that these blogs were appropriate since the authors are authoritative (being directors of their films) and that Myspace.com was not always imperative to delete.  I was able to figure out a solution by working with an admin to add certain Myspace blog links to a spam whitelist so they could stay, but the ordeal was exhaustive as my argument seemed like it fell on deaf ears.
 * A couple of instances come to mind. When I was working on The Fountain, I had a bit of a heated edit war with another editor regarding the structuring of production information.  There were some changes of his that I had found unreasonable, and when I tried to improve on them, I found myself reverted.  I tried to contact him on his talk page, but he didn't respond for some reason.  The situation didn't escalate, and I made use of his beneficial changes while tidying up the ones that didn't seem as useful.  The other instance was regarding the removal of Myspace blogs.  Several film directors have Myspace blogs that they use to share production information, but an editor was removing links using AWB, citing that Myspace and blogs were not valid sources.  I tried to present my argument to him that these blogs were appropriate since the authors are authoritative (being directors of their films) and that Myspace.com was not always imperative to delete.  I was able to figure out a solution by working with an admin to add certain Myspace blog links to a spam whitelist so they could stay, but the ordeal was exhaustive as my argument seemed like it fell on deaf ears.