Wikipedia:Editor review/How do you turn this on 2

How do you turn this on*
I thought I'd reopen this, since some users have recently been criticizing my actions, and would like to get more of a view on this, and my edits since August. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 

I've archived this review. Please see the reason listed above. If you wish to be reviewed, please file a new request and remember to transclude it onto the main Editor review page. Netalarm  talk  06:49, 24 October 2009 (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 worked solidly on Mark Speight, which unfortunately failed FAC twice, but it's my best work by far. I've also written several DYKs, a few new articles, and worked on lots of others. As of late, I've not had easy internet access, which makes article work for me difficult, so my mainspace work may have gone down as of late. I now have my own computer, and intend to work on more articles.
 * 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?
 * No stress at all, but I have been annoyed at a few editors' actions in various places, and let them know about it (good example would be Ling.Nut's canvassing of Mark Speight's FAC in a very negative light, and comparing it to a start class article.) I was a bit upset obviously, but moved on with things. Additionally, I was helping out with a query on Iridescent's talk page, and was called a "child" and my comments were labeled "irrational ramblings", and the same user also claimed I had no idea what I was talking about. This upset me a bit, considering how I went out of my way to get on with this editor, even suggesting we worked on an article together; in return, I get basically slapped in the face for simply trying to help out. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick Review from balloonman I just did a quick review of your edits. I think if you were considering running for adminship, that you would probably fail. I don't know how I would personally vote if you were to run, but you've made some pretty powerful enemies whose !votes carry a fair amount of weight at RfA's. I'm talking namely about the FA/FAC crowd. Most of the animosity probably isn't your fault, but it appears to be there nonetheless. It started with Ceoil and continues through Ling.Nut. Both are great contributors, but both have a knack for getting under peoples skin. I think it goes with the territory, people who work at that high level of perfection seek perfection---they call a spade a spade as they see it and don't suffer fools tolerantly. That being said, you too have a knack for getting under peoples skins---reference our first dialogues a few months back.

Also, if you were thinking about adminship, participation at RFA is (IMO) one of the worst ways to prepare for it. It is often interpretted as somebody who is in the project for the tools/power. Observation has shown that people who work at RFA, tend to have a harder time passing RfA's than outsiders. The trend is that they get a ton of early supports from the RfA regulars, then the rest of the community starts posting. I've heard/seen enough, that it is not a good thing.

As for my personal impressions? We got off to a really bad start. I honestly was waiting for the day you ran for admin so that I could nail you to the cross, but I think we worked it out. I've grown to respect you as a user and your opinions. For the most part, you do handle yourself civilly and respectfully---based upon what I saw, and I didn't dig too deep, your actions at Coeil's block discussion were received in a much more negative light than I think you ever intended them to be or actually said. But, that being said, you probably should have listened to Sandy and backed off---even if you were right, emotions were high, and you found yourself as part of the problem, not the solution. Following Coeil around didn't help the tempers. I do believe that you did so for pure and noble reasons, but they were received negatively.

I like that you have a wide breadth of interest and participate in several areas of the project. Again, while we don't always agree, I do see your comments as having value and generally insightful. Again, if you were to run, yours would be an RfA that I probably wouldn't look into---it is harder to review a wiki-friend, than some anonymous wiki-contributor.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 06:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was more looking for some insight of how to improve my editing style - I'm not interested in adminship right now. So basically, try not to upset "influencial" people? – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Upsetting influencial people is alright, I've done it, it shows independence. But when one of those influencial people comes to your talk page and asks you to take a step back on an issue your are only loosely affiliated with, you probably should listen---even if you don't agree.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 21:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 Comment by Ceoil I think you are one of the most blatent carerrists I ve seen in a long time. You stick you oar into everwhere you can, wheather it fits or not. You interest in FAC was transparently a rouse to build up RFA credits (using the short FA debate as a cut through actual work), and done within 2 months of of your wiki life. Since you appeared, you are everywhere, commenting on everything, welcome / informed or not. Just to get your voice in, and clock up thoes credits. You said you are sick to the teeth of the whole content vs. admin debate, but if you are only 2 months old how the hell do you know about it? Sock. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in adminship right now. Right. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did write a long response to this, but I just remembered - this is just a website. If people want to write false information about me, I can live with it. I don't care, I can take rudeness from people quite well. I have better things to do than care what Ceoil thinks of me. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me know which bit is false. You entered an editor review; you did ask (as another step on the path to adminship). And look you found me first, I didn't go looking for you. Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * All of it. "You stick you oar into everwhere you can, wheather it fits or not." False. I give input on occasion to wherever I feel it necessary or useful for my opinion to be heard. I don't go "everwhere". "You interest in FAC was transparently a rouse to build up RFA credits, and done within 2 months of of your wiki life". False. I wanted to write a good article, and I had intended to go by GA first - someone else suggested I took it to FAC. Big mistake. I'm not here to gain "credits", I'm here to improve articles. "Since you appeared, you are everywhere, commenting on everything, welcome / informed or not." See the previous point - this is simply wrong. "Just to get your voice in, and clock up thoes credits." And again - all I'm interested in is ending the dispute. "You said you are sick to the teeth of the whole content vs. admin debate, but if you are only 2 months old how the hell do you know about it?" Perhaps because it was all over several talk pages and noticeboards? It wasn't exactly hard to miss. You begged me to leave you alone, and I did. We do not get along, so why have you decided to come here opening up old wounds? What's your point? Your whole comment reaks of bad-faith, aggressiveness, and anger at me. You claim I want adminship - I'll admit, I'd find it useful now and again. But I'm not after it. I just wanted advice to be a better editor. I didn't want someone to come and stamp on my head with a whole bunch of false accusations and misinformed ideas about me. Now I'm taking some time off Wikipedia because it's slowly but surely ceasing to be enjoyable. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a little late for me to comment, seeing as how HDYTTO has already gone off to take a break...and what I'm about to say will probably get me yelled at for being incivil, but whatever:
 * Ceoil, what the fuck? I have had cordial interactions with you in the past through DYK, but seriously, who the hell do you think you are to tell an editor where he is and is not welcome on Wikipedia?  As far as I knew, being involved in a wide variety of projects was a good thing; since when did being an active contributor and taking an interest in a variety of areas turn into "sticking your oar in"?  With the exception of banned users, I have never heard of someone's opinion being "unwelcome" just because they come from a different part of Wikipedia.  Your above comment was one of the rudest and most ridiculous claims I have seen from a well-established user since I joined Wikipedia.
 * As for your preposterous claim that HDYTTO is a sock, I don't know where you got the idea that he's only been on WP for two months; he's been here since July.
 * I was planning on writing my own review of HDYTTO soon, but I just couldn't let your comments sit here without a response. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 01:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We got off to a really bad start, and met in really unhappy circumstances. I felt badgered by you at the time, but more than one person has told me since that my impressions were mistaken. Given that, I've struck my warblings above, and think its about time we had a chat to clear the air between us. I'm told you are a good guy and might be able to forgive my generalisations. I hope so, and you are welcome to contact me on either my talk or email. I have seven ears and you will be heard! Ceoil (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ceiol- I don't know you. But as you can see from my comments above, when HDYTTO and I first met, we were at each others throats as well.  I honestly was looking forward to killing his RfA if/when he ran.  Since then, I've come to appreciate his input.  I don't always agree with it, but I don't generally see him being uncivil.  I did review some of the stuff regarding your block... I would be lying if I said I saw it all... and I do question some of his actions there.  That being said, I felt that some of the criticism he received was blown out of proportion to what he actually said.  Unfortunately, he would say something, it was received in the worse possible light.  He tried to explain things, again as a neutral observer not involved in the emotions at the time, his comments were again interpretted in the worst possible light.  And it seems to have spiraled out of control.  He probably should have listened to Sandy when she came to his page on several occassions, but some of what he said (to me) didn't seem as bad as the reaction he got.  Again, *I* didn't read everything nor did I get the actual flow of events... I read one page, then another, so I wasn't involved.  But that is my perception.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 02:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Pretty much I agree with that assement, the whole thing was a pity all round but now ancient history and I'm trying to mend fences here. If How can forgive my silly outburst above we are more than quits, as far as I am concerned. And sorry for my poor "seven ears" Pink Floyd joke. Ceoil (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. My wikibreak lasted a matter of hours :-) One useful thing that has been brought up at least, that I agree with is that I have stuck my nose in where it's not wanted, and it's caused all sorts of problems. Nowadays I try to avoid doing that, and not become too emotionally involved with an issue. As I said earlier, this is an encyclopedia not a playground - we should not be fighting each other over petty issues. We can do better. – How do you turn this on (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)