Wikipedia:Editor review/MBisanz 2

MBisanz
Well I've been active for about a year now, done a fair amount of work in content and administrative stuff, and decided to put myself up for review.  MBisanz  talk 18:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Have you really only been here for a year? Extraordinary. Well, you're intelligent, perceptive and bloody useful to have around. How's that for a review? --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * MBisanz's first edit was back in July 2005, but he didn't start regularly contributing until May 2007. So more like a year-and-a-half. But that's pedantry. I can only repeat what Dweller said: "intelligent, perceptive and bloody useful to have around". That's only an impression, though. Haven't dug through your contribs. I would ask a question I think everyone should ask themselves, so I'll do that. Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your deletion of Arecibo Reply was tantamount to vandalism. I explained the reasons clearly at [].  The article FAILED the test for "fringe" criteria because as I demonstrated, it HAD sufficient notability, both in the paranormal community (disagreement with which is according to the guidelines NOT valid VFD grounds) and in the public realm, including a SETI press release on the subject.  I also demonstrated that both the nomination and the voters for (one of whom by his own admission didn't even finish READING the article on grounds of his own confessed predjudice!) were arguing on POV grounds that had NOTHING to do with the deletion criteria.  I also explained that Wikipedia is a work in progress and that the author was on wikibreak and therefore was being taken advantage of in his absence (the deletion notice was posted to his user page with the break notice prominently visible).  This betrayed the grossest of the kind of bad faith that disgraces the wiki community.  Did you even read the discussion, or did you just count votes, which (if you read criteria, however boring you find them) is also not a valid basis for the decision?  If you don't revert the deletion, which clearly failed WP's guidelines, I will be forced to look into further grounds for complaint.  I will also attempt to notify the author of your action.  98.225.14.19 (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC).  (Username sig = Chris Rodgers (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC))
 * I would be more than happy to discuss further with you at my talk page, but I believe the discussion in question, Articles for deletion/Arecibo reply, was a reasonable close.  MBisanz  talk 13:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Consistent with the points just noted above, including the (was it three?) arguments pro and my mentioned study of the wiki guidelines, I obviously disagree. If time permits this weekend, I will try to again take each of the pro voters' "arguments" and treat them one by one with reference to specific retention criteria for you.  I'm slightly surprised you seem not to find S.A.'s employment of author absence a relevant bad faith, but I will of course assume the unduly hasty first-read cursoriness discussed below rather than bad faith by you and see you there if I can pull it off.  Chris Rodgers (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Chris, I reviewed the AFD in detail when closing and again since then, I reviewed it both both the type of arguments presented and the weight of community consensus behind the arguments presented. It was and remains in my view that the community consensus favored deletion.  That is my final opinion on that AFD.  MBisanz  talk 10:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
 * MBisanz: humble, friendly, clever, diligent; what's not to like? I feel there're many editors better-equipped to review this editor than myself and since this is my first time, I'll leave the asterisk up, sorry. :)--Thecurran (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I note the positive comments here and take them seriously; for this reason, I wonder whether the posts s/he recently sent to three users (including me) are uncharacteristic. Did s/he think through the effect of issuing a threat to block established users simply because there has been disagreement at MOSNUM talk and on the project page over the past few weeks, including reversions that did not even approach 3RR? I took offence at the assumptions made, the way-premature and overbearing threat, the sending of an elaborate prefabricated message that would be more appropriate to newbies, and the most inappropriate "Happy editing" sign-off. Several tenets of the policy on admin actions and behaviour appear to be at issue. My colleagues and I look to admins as an example of calm, measured actions that seek to conciliate rather than raise the level of emotion. I probably over-reacted in my complaint on MBisanz's talk page, but I believe that the goals of adminship have been undermined on this occasion. Tony   (talk)  13:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Having received the same intemperate notice (in direct contravention of MBisanz 2's claim, below that "I try now to sit on something for at least a couple of hours before responding or sanity check my response with another user before involving myself in an area", I second those concerns. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to see some featured articles and lists from your end. Getting an article featured is a great learning experience for any newcomer. You get to learn the style, layout, and working with consensus =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not investigated your edits thoroughly, but from following discussions here and there, I have a vague impression of your style of behaviour as somewhat wikilawyeristic (how that for a horrible neologism?) . Now, that could just be because you exhibit a keen knowledge of policy, but it seems to me that your first instinct when an issue is raised is to find out which policy says what about it. This is not always helpful, as different issues call for different responses and styles of responses; but you show an awareness of this in your answer to question 3 below. In any case, this is an entirely superficial and possibly entirely inaccurate observation on my part, but WP:ER tends to be under-staffed so I thought I would pitch in. Best of luck with the self-improvement, the skomorokh  20:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with skomorokh. Far too bureaucratic and process-wonky. You need to be a little less rigid, and more laid-back with your editing style. Just because you're an admin, it doesn't make you better than everyone else. Needs to understand that banned users are people too, and don't become an unperson. So, to improve: chill out a bit when editing. Get off the dramaboards, and concentrate on writing articles instead.  Al Tally  talk  12:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 Questions

I would like to know you philosophy on block warnings and blocks. You supported an unwarranted block warning against me by User:Dweller. Dweller said he could have blocked me without a warning. It was given to me 8 hours after the alleged offense. On ANI, an admin found a comment by the victim of my alleged attack admitting my comments were a joke. Another admin said the block warning was unwarranted in any event. Yet you supported it with multiple comments to me on User:Dweller's page.
 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * My best article is The National Conference Center which I got to GA, I found the research process of finding information on it and negotiating with photographers for images particularly enlivening. My second best would be Bell Labs Holmdel Complex because I actually learned some interesting things about architecture in writing it.
 * 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?
 * Yes, I have been in conflicts in the past, most notably here and here. I've found the key in these situations is recognizing if/where I errored, trying to fix it, and then moving on to something else, since this is such a big place that there is no need to continue to harp on an issue.
 * 1) What do you think is your biggest weakness as a Wikipedia editor and what steps have you taken to tackle this weakness, if any? Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to respond too rapidly to issues, giving a quick opinion based on a first-read of the situation, I try now to sit on something for at least a couple of hours before responding or sanity check my response with another user before involving myself in an area.  MBisanz  talk 07:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Block warning philosophy
 * I tend to respond too rapidly to issues, giving a quick opinion based on a first-read of the situation, I try now to sit on something for at least a couple of hours before responding or sanity check my response with another user before involving myself in an area.  MBisanz  talk 07:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Block warning philosophy
 * Note: The only admin to comment on ANI so far is Gwen Gale who believed it was a warnable comment, no other administrators ahve commented there.


 * Is this behavior typical of your attitude toward blocking productive editors?
 * I apply to same standards of compliance with policy to every editors, regardless of editing backgound.


 * Do you still defend that block warning and the threat that I could have been legitimately blocked without any warning?
 * Yes, accusing another editor of having a medical condition as you did at is inappropriate and further such comments will result in a block.


 * How careful to avoid harming and scaring editors unnecessarily?
 * By using the standardized warning system that has been designed with such concerns in mind.


 * Do you think a block 8 hours after the "offense" without any kind of warning is justified, even if the person supposedly personally attacked had not admitted that the comment was a joke?
 * I believe that is a single factor that goes into the decision to block, past conduct, the nature of the comment, etc all determine if/when/how I would enact such a block.


 * Although at least 2 admins on ANI found the warning unwarranted, do you stand by you post to me that it counts as a warning so that you or Dweller can exercise the same quality of judgment and block me because of this "warning"?
 * I challenge this statement, Gwen Gale is the only administrator to comment at the AN thread so far and commented that the warning was appropriate.

We have seen much abuse lately by admins blocking unjustly productive editors who write articles.
 * Are you supportive of a "quick finger on the trigger" approach to blocking with or without warning?
 * Again, depending on the nature of the policy violation, if an editor is blanking pages or posting private data, I may very well block without warning, if the editor is establish or is violating a less significant policy, I will usually resort to levels of warning first.


 * Do you look into the situation before blocking or issuing a block when you do not know the editor you are blocking?
 * Yes, I look into the circumstances surrounding a situation to ensure a block is warranted.


 * Do you believe in the mission of this project that the purpose is to write articles?
 * Yes, I agree with WP:ENC entirely.


 * Are you supportive of editors who do write articles, and who are not involved in the admin affairs or conflicts?
 * Yes, I attempt to support their efforts as best I can by maintaining a vandalism-free, civil, and neutral environment conducive to content creation.


 * Do you consider the context of the alleged offense and the productivity and contributions of an editor before blocking without warning for a questionable offense?
 * Yes.

Thank you. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded.  MBisanz  talk 20:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice from your edit count that you have a low participation in articles. This compares with mine
 * In my opinion, you are not an asset to Wikipedia. You can block me and you can decrease my will to contribute. You already have done that and you have prevented me from ever being willing to participate in FAC again. This is at a time when FAC is crying out for reviewers. I have consistently provided good reviews for the project. In this one case, I opposed the FAC. For that I was harassed on my user page for weeks. I did not think of going to an admin for the personal attacks I received. However, if an FAC editor can use his personal contacts with Admins to drive away an "Oppose" from his article, then so be it. I am still not going to result to asking Admins for blocks unless it is serious vandalizing. I do not see that you have any concern for the feeling of real contributors. It is sad. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)