Wikipedia:Editor review/Grsz11

Grsz11
'''I am removing this from the review page as it's been up for awhile and there are many others there that haven't been reviewed. Instead of taking up more space there, I'm making this available in my userspace. Thanks,  Grsz  11   →Review! ''' 14:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just want some general feedback on my edits and actions, as I've gotten more and more involved with different aspects of the project.  Grsz  talk  00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 

 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?
 * 2007-08 Pittsburgh Penguins season, an article I significantly contributed to recently passed GA status. I like writing articles when I can, and this is one of few chances I've had to do that because most of my other interests are already well-developed with little to add. I've also created several articles on hockey players, however, as they're not very notable players there is little information to add. I'll be continuing with those articles as more is available. I also contribute to the random history or political article - those interests come and go.  Grsz  X  00:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * I was interested in editing articles about the 2008 US election, obviously a contentious topic. Conflicts at Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are frequent, and I learned from my earlier experiences at Obama. Following an unrelated wikibreak after some conflicts at Obama, I've been involved at Palin and feel I'm better able to handle these issues that come up.  Grsz  talk  16:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * comment: on 3RR, you were extremely uncivil and rude. if i were an admin, i would have banned you immediately. please do not be rude to other wikipedians. i am *extremely* surprised you haven't been banned yet. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But you aren't. And this is a review of editing, not opinions.  Grsz  talk  06:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Being uncivil/rude is an example of an edit. And I can't say your "but you aren't" comment won't look bad overall as well  BMW  (drive)  13:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some context.  Grsz  11   →Review!  01:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * comment: On Obama talk pages, you gave me the feeling of being prickly, and short. And then you template warned me which I found appallingly rude.  For a liberal I thought I had you pinned as a people person, but you obviously aren't.  Very unfortunate.  Digital Ninja  19:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifics? Or was that a rant? And who said I'm liberal? And where does it say I can't template warn you?  Grsz  Review!  20:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The specifics are pretty much any communication we've shared on the Obama talk page. However, IMO and from what I understand Wikipedia's purpose is, your editing is informative, passionate, and reasonable.  You close pointless discussions at proper times, you correct mistakes (e.g. mainspace vio's), and your generally knowledgeable when pointing out certain policy and using the spirit of such instead of the letter.  This is my honest review, happy now?  On a personal note I bet it would be interesting debating with you, as long as we're out of arms reach :)  Digital Ninja  20:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Question by Hobartimus
 * 1) How would you describe the events that lead to your block log, were the blocks unfair, was it due to admin abuse etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobartimus (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the question Hobartimus. I'll go at them one by one. The first on 24 April at Barack Obama I feel was an unfair block. The block was placed over 14 hours after the edits were made (history section here). Seeing as "the purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment", I don't believe the block should have been made. In the 24 hour period in question, I made 4 reversions to the page. I could argue that this was vandalism and that this edit was inline with WP:BLP, as the text in the previous version was not reflective of the source. The other two edits are open to interpretation, but even if they are counted to 3RR, that makes a total of 2 reversions in that period. As for the merits of the block, I highly respect User:Josiah Rowe, however, he was frequently involved in the Obama article, and many argue that involved editors should not make dispute blocks.

The second at Jeremiah Wright controversy is in this field. Undid here; this undo was to reflect the source; These two were reverts, and this one restored deleted sourced material which could be considered vandalism per WP:VAN.

I believe the third, most recent one was completely unfair. It involved another editor with a history of incivility and disruptive editing. The timeframe is here. All edits are open to interpretation based on a no consensus RfC. While the other editor thought he was justified in added the content, it could justly be countered by WP:BLP and WP:TERRORIST, as the RfC resulted in no consensus to change the previous wording. Still though, Noroton went ahead and added some text. What he failed to realize is that the text he was adding was already in the article in a section titled "Described as terrorists". The text Noroton added was nearly identical to the text already in. I reverted him once and twice. In the third edit I copied Noroton's wording over the previous section. This should in no way be considered as a revert. I made one other edit, an undo, in the 24 hours before this. My reverts of Noroton were construed to violate 3RR, while many could argue that adding duplicate information is vandalism, at the very least the third edit were I simply moved his text cannot be counted.

I hope this thoroughly answers the question, please feel free to ask any more you may have.  Grsz  11   →Review!  16:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment This revert is quintessential Grsz11. The revertee is an enemy Grsz11 vanquished. 141.217.173.37 (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A sock farm I outed, yes. Requests for checkuser/Case/Del arte.  Grsz  11   →Review!  02:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If it had been one of your friends who made the same edits, citing the same books with the same citation format (or any citation format, for that matter), would you still have reverted? 141.217.43.153 (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If it hadn't been a disruptive sock puppet...  Grsz  11   →Review!  23:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't know how you behave on other article's, but on Obama talk you have been nothing but rude and uncivil with me from the moment you say me. You had nothing to say that actually pertained to the discussion, and had a negative attitude all around. You used words like pathetic, bullshit, etc. I can provide diffs of these comments or to other rude/uncivil statements if anyone wants them. It would appear you have a habit of treating people poorly that do not agree with you. Most people do not expect you to agree with them, just to be treated with respect. For example, how I was treated on the talk page when the thread was closed prematurely was acknowledged at ANI. You bombarded my talk page with warnings, while at the same time you said nothing to all of those that agreed with you that were extremely uncivil with me, including yourself. Landon1980 (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you didn't like how things turned out, but when you are continuing the same disruption after it had been pointed out to be disruptive several times, other editors lose the ability to assume good faith. My warnings to you were justified, as you were engaged in personal attacks, etc. I invite you to provide diffs that are legitimately wrong on my part, though I'm not sure what you could come up with.  Grsz  11   →Review!  00:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also curious how this edit summary fits your definition of civil. Take this for what is people: a whining rant.  Grsz  11   →Review!  00:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That edit summary isn't civil; I wasn't aware this was my editor review. Are you denying that you were rude with me? Are you honestly saying you have not been rude the last couple days? Landon1980 (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm saying I'd like you to show me where. You've accused everybody of being uncivil, and have gotten no response. Why? Because you're wrong.  Grsz  11   →Review!  01:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The people I accused of being uncivil I did get a respose. Notice the comments now stricken through and the thread on ANI. I was called foolish, prick, boy, insane, and more. This has nothing to do with you so remove it if you want. This review pertains to your behavior and no one elses. Stop zoning in on my behavior and worry about your own. You are only trying to discredit me which is understandable. As rude as you have been the last couple days makes me think you have bhaved similarly in the past. I'll post some diffs here in a little while when I have time. Referring to me as a sore loser, and saying I'm only whining and ranting isn't exactly polite. Landon1980 (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You also insisted on referring to me as a troll when I was doing no such thing. You even used rollback on one of my edits which was not vandalism in any form or fashion. That is not the intended use of rollback, you don't see me intentionally rolling back your edits. Landon1980 (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, in lieu of this edit, I believe these accusations can be ignored.  Grsz  11   →Review!  04:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? How does that edit pertain to your review? What is the relevance of that edit to the situation. Again, why do you keep focusing on me? This review is about you, not me, do you not understand that? You know you were rude to me, you will not admit to it but you were. The fact is I annoy you and you can't stand me. The most worrysome aspect of this is rather than seeing that you were rude, and that you made unproductive comments in general you fight to defend your position. Regardless of what I did or didn't do, you were rude and uncivil end of story. I don't have time right now to list all the diffs I'll do it early tomorrow. Landon1980 (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I've been waiting for your diffs that you still haven't produced. You two went off to an another admin and didn't get the response you wanted, and you've taken it out on others again.  Grsz  11   →Review!  04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If an admin told me I was out of line, I would accept that and respond accordingly. Despite your attempts, this hasn't happened. Until then your accusations are just that, accusations. If they were hurtful I apologize, but other than that, I don't regret anything I said.  Grsz  11   →Review!  04:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly feel that you were not rude with me? Nothing you have said has been hurtful, all that bothers me is if I said the exact same things to you as you have to me you would be flooding my talk page with incivility warnings, and threatening blocks. I really don't care what you say to me on wikipedia, I know just don't like you playing innocent. What I'm saying is that you being rude with me on wikipedia isn't a big deal, I know you would not say these things to me in real life so I couldn't care less. I realize a lot of this is cluttering up your review, so remove whatever you want. I'll briefly describe the situation with diffs sometime tomorrow. Landon1980 (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a comment, Landon1980 was a problematic editor - committing some strong incivilities (accusing people of racism) and edit warring on the Barack Obama talk page over a matter that had appeared there a few dozen times before... objecting to Obama being primarily described as "African American" rather than biracial. But interestingly, all in good faith.  People reacted in different ways - some deleting Landon1980's contributions or closing discussions (as a point of disclosure, I was among those), others filing reports, yet others making warnings, and some (ostensibly - it is hard to tell online) losing their cool.  I think the incident is a fair test of an editor - how to deal with such a situation.  Landon1980's opinion of Grsz11 is not a simple matter.  They clashed over an issue where, technically by the rules of Wikipedia, I think Grz11 was right.  But if Landon1980 managed to get under Grz11's skin to the point of Grz11 calling "bullshit", that is a trial by fire.  Any serious editor on Wikipedia is going to run across many types of bumps and pitfalls, and interpersonal conflicts.  We will all face this.  How to deal with it?  You can't let the encyclopedia suffer, you can't ignore trouble always.  Yet most every editor has a point to make and a reason for saying and feeling how they do.  Although I have objected to Landon1980's way of approaching the Obama article talk page, deep down in the heart of things the point Landon1980 was making about race is a valid and significant one.  - Wikidemon (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We might as well start a review for me, this is increasingly becoming more and more about me. The difference is I admitted I lost my cool, and apologized for my statements. What keeps being ignored is that the incident you are referring to was not just me behaving poorly. It has been acknowledged that pretty much everyone involved handled the whole thing badly. I would have never had to reopen the thread if it was not closed prematurely. I would not have said half the things I did if I wasn't repeatedly called troll, etc. The editor I called racist referred to me with several derogatory terms, you failed to mention that. You can defend this editor all you want. He started a review, I felt he was rude so I told him. It is obvious he isn't exactly fond of me. He has something snarky to say to virtually every comment I make. Landon1980 (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)