Wikipedia:Editor review/Fæ (2)

Fæ
I'm passed my 18,000 edit milestone (>10,000 since my last review), so some feedback on my conduct and contributions might give me some direction for improving my Wikipedia skills. I have found that keeping WP:5P in mind rather than derivative, if well known, guidelines has helped when asked to justify my edits (or reversions). Fæ (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * ''My largest recent contributions to Wikipedia are:
 * Welcoming new users. I use some tailored templates to welcome users in different situations (Userspace/talk page only, possible POV or problematic editor, etc.) and sometimes this means editing or rolling back their first contribution and explaining what happened. I aim to use welcome templates rather than warning templates for a brand new editor unless they are a blatant spammer, sockpuppet or attack account.
 * Collaborating on WP:GLAM/BM. This involved some innovative workshops with British Museum staff and long term collaboration on articles to get them to a higher standard and in some cases to Featured article status (see Talk:Hoxne Hoard and Talk:Gebelein predynastic mummies). I was quite pleased with the helpful templates I created such as British-Museum-object and upgrading of British Museum as well as templates for use on Commons. A number of artefact photographs used in articles such as Royal Gold Cup (now FA) and Burney Relief (now GA) were taken by me.
 * The alumni problem. There is an ongoing issue with embedded unsourced and sometimes non-notable lists of people, particularly evident in lists of alumni of organizations but also with lists of people possibly from or born in a certain place. I have created User:Fæ/Alumni as a helpful summary and use some handy scripts/regex to mark uncited or red-link entries on these lists. The consensus is that any such list should include citations in the article though many users believe that this is excessive if the list has linked articles for each list member. An example list I have tidied up is List of Syrian people.''
 * 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?
 * ''Handling disputes. I try to avoid lengthy disputes, however examples of how I handle these debates are:
 * Talk:Johann Hari where an editor with a known potential COI repeatedly objected to mention of pro-Israel organizations in the article and I proposed a neutral version. I made good use of the WP:3O process to gain an independent perspective. I think the debate went on too long and it may have been more efficient to use WP:COIN.
 * After raising Articles for deletion/Mico Apostolov, the creator of the article 8MA8 became rather problematic and it appeared likely there was some COI issues (I raised the relevant advice on their talk page) and that they may have been using sockpuppets. Luckily another user raised Sockpuppet investigations/8MA8 and I added some of the other likely puppets that started to cause problems removing the article AfD notice and attempting to lobby the deletion discussion. Particularly after one of these puppets attempted to accuse me of being a puppetmaster in retaliation, I gave enough time for other editors to intervene rather than being tempted to react to problems as they occurred.
 * ''Dealing with vandals.
 * After the new user list, my second largest source of vandal identification comes from my watchlist. This is mostly just simple user warnings and welcomes if a first contribution. I make reasonable use of WP:AIV and WP:RPP when this fails. I pick up quite a few commercial organizations using Wikipedia for free advertising, with the relevant warning most go away, some ask for help (I often point to WP:COIN as a place for further discussion of what they want to do) and a few get abusive and I ignore them as it's not long before someone else gets around to blocking the account.
 * The long term puppetmaster Amandabilliot was originally identified by me and I raised a second round of accounts for blocking using the SPI process. This is a rather subtle misuse of Wikipedia to host dummy user pages using copied articles. The motivation for this person is still unclear and they have refused to explain why they do it. As there is little pattern between the accounts it is likely that the majority are still out there unblocked. I have helped and reported other sockpuppet issues but this has not been a major component of my time.
 * Talk:Yolanda Soares has suffered problematic long issues with hoax sources and apparent tampering from an anonymous IP that recently claimed to be a writer for the same artist. Researching the sources (using 'whois' website checks and reviewing details of the terms and conditions) revealed a number of them to be suspect and were removed. For the recent challenge of defamation, I applied the advice of WP:NLT and raised the matter for attention on WP:AIV even though the claims appeared to have little substance.
 * Repeatedly reverting - it worries me when my reversions may be correct (such as reverting someone adding disputed personal information) but I end up re-reverting the possible vandal. I try and leave it to others to intervene when I have reverted twice already, a clear edit comment helps and sometimes a talk page comment when the text is blatantly problematic. Anytime I realize I have reverted 3 times I always feel guilty and vow to rely on discussion and help from other editors rather than baiting another editor into a potential edit war; I do not believe that just because I am supported by existing consensus or policy means I have a mandate to side-step civil behaviour.''
 * Repeatedly reverting - it worries me when my reversions may be correct (such as reverting someone adding disputed personal information) but I end up re-reverting the possible vandal. I try and leave it to others to intervene when I have reverted twice already, a clear edit comment helps and sometimes a talk page comment when the text is blatantly problematic. Anytime I realize I have reverted 3 times I always feel guilty and vow to rely on discussion and help from other editors rather than baiting another editor into a potential edit war; I do not believe that just because I am supported by existing consensus or policy means I have a mandate to side-step civil behaviour.''

 Reviews 


 * I'm not really the best person to comment, as I'm quite new here. However, I wanted to say that your quickness and dedication to vandalism-fighting is really impressive. I only have a few pages watchlisted, but you're usually the one who reverts the vandalism in most of them, and I see you warning on the talk pages of many anonymous vandals, and from a quick look at your talk page, you seem to be usually quite civil. :) I just want to thank you for all you do here and ask you to keep up the excellent work. Sincerely, → Clementina  [  Scribble  ] 12:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

* Articles for deletion/Elfwood (2nd nomination) was a poor nomination. Fae should please review WP:BEFORE to improve the quality of future work of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike old comment, see below.Fæ (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I return to comment on Articles for deletion/Learned pigs & fireproof women and find that I have been here before &mdash; tsk. I shall not repeat myself and User:Drmies seems to think that User:Fæ is well aware of such WP guidelines and policies.  To take a different tack, I suggest that Fæ make some civil approach to the author of that article.  This might be an apology or perhaps an offer to help with the article now that its bona fides are well-established.  This might then offset the bad impression made by the templated warnings and attempts to delete this notable topic.  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Colonel, you have been here before. Unfortunately you refused to answer my follow up questions back in August, hence I removed your comment (diff) and now I find you trivially grieving me here about old issues long dead. Please take some time to dust the chips from your shoulders and do something more useful. You will note I have never approached you on any matter apart from responding to some of your complaints about me and I respectfully request that you leave me alone and let other experienced Wikipedians advise me. Fæ (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You complain that I don't talk to you and then you complain that I do. I shall do as you suggest and invite other experienced Wikipedians to advise you. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)