Wikipedia:Editor review/Master&Expert (2)

Master&#38;Expert (2)
&mdash; I just don't think there's any place on Wikipedia for someone like me. I can't really explain why I feel this way, but pictures are worth a thousand words, so I'll just link to my Edit Counter statistics. Roughly 40% of my edits are to Wikipedia space, while just over 20% are to articles. I guess it goes without saying that I'm not one of Wikipedia's standout content contributors; the only credit I have to my name is a DYK dating all the way back to December 2008. I used to actively revert vandalism (I've had rollback permissions since October 2008), but I tend to get bored with it rather quickly. I have never received a single barnstar, and I honestly don't think I've done anything to deserve one either. All I do is float around, offering my opinion wherever I feel compelled to speak. I don't want to make a nuisance of myself, and I don't want to be seen as the guy who throws gasoline on every fiery dramafest he comes across. I want to be somebody of value to Wikipedia.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 11:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I guess you could say I'm a mix of two "WikiSpecies" &mdash; I am both a WikiGnome and a WikiElf. Most of my relatively limited article work consists of spelling/grammatical corrections, removing deadlinks, and occasionally adding new information to outdated articles. I oftentimes do this while logged out, so not all of my article contributions are available in my contributions log. But I would say the aspects of Wikipedia I find myself most inclined towards are its policies and processes. I have been an active participant at RfA for three years, throughout which I've chimed in on numerous adminship candidacies (almost always placing my signature in the "support" column). I also enjoy partaking in discussions at AfD, ANI, ARB/N, and elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I don't like causing or participating in drama, but I'm very interested in helping the community resolve disputes.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * Have any disputes on Wikipedia caused me genuine stress? No, I wouldn't say so. Sometimes I feel like I'm being misunderstood, and it frustrates me to explain myself yet again so people will see my point. Then there are times when I come across some very cynical or unfriendly comments (usually aimed at other people), and it really bothers me. I can imagine how I would feel if someone spoke so offensively about something that I've said or done. I don't know why the Wikipedian community is so tolerant of persistent incivility so long as it's not in the form of a personal attack. I guess what is most irksome to me is the cumbersome bureaucracy that has stood in the way of Wikipedia's progression as a positive collaborative experience. That's the problem I'm most interested in fixing.
 * Have any disputes on Wikipedia caused me genuine stress? No, I wouldn't say so. Sometimes I feel like I'm being misunderstood, and it frustrates me to explain myself yet again so people will see my point. Then there are times when I come across some very cynical or unfriendly comments (usually aimed at other people), and it really bothers me. I can imagine how I would feel if someone spoke so offensively about something that I've said or done. I don't know why the Wikipedian community is so tolerant of persistent incivility so long as it's not in the form of a personal attack. I guess what is most irksome to me is the cumbersome bureaucracy that has stood in the way of Wikipedia's progression as a positive collaborative experience. That's the problem I'm most interested in fixing.

 Reviews 
 * A quick review of your contribs reveal that you have a regular editing interest at In the news, particularly on Arab topics. Writing on what you're interested on and more intensive work at ITN is a good point to begin, and I would recommend a local Wikiproject where you can work on existing articles, and perhaps new ones as well. - Mailer Diablo 21:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice. I've had an interest in the Middle East for years, and I do edit articles related to Arab countries. But I have a hard time actually focusing on one area for an extended period of time. Would it be a good idea to change this?  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 13:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I always encourage editors to be all-rounded in Wikipedia, though editors tend to get their best experience out of what they can do best (in their area of expertise). You can consider rotating with Did you know, or work with other editors that you're familiar with on their topics (such as copyediting). - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you considered becoming involved in "lower level", if you will, dispute resolution processes like WP:DRN and WP:3O and article RFCs? These are good places for someone interested in providing analysis and opinions, like yourself, to make a more direct contribution to content building. Keeping the actual writers from killing each other is, in my opinion, a very valuable contribution to Wikipedia. And if you wish to bypass the bureaucracy inherent in those processes, I've often found that patrolling new editor's contributions is a good way to find and smooth over the disputes often caused when new editors meet Wikipedia's culture for the first time. If, like me, you're not going to be doing much writing yourself, helping writers start out is a good way to indirectly get content created. Danger High voltage! 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)