Wikipedia:Editor review/Noraft

Noraft
I'm requesting a review to get some general feedback on how I'm doing. I'm a Wiki-generalist, trying to get into lots of different areas so I know how everything works. A look at my edit history and logs will show article creation and improvement, vandalism and new page patrolling, some leadership activities in a couple different WikiProjects, participation in WP:MEDCAB, and some award creation, among other things. I'm also a member of my local Wikimedia Foundation chapter and attend meetings. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 13:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I'd say my primary contributions to Wikipedia thus far have been:
 * 1) * The WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors Backlog elimination drive which I am coordinating. It has seen about 800 articles with the tag being copyedited (so far).
 * 2) * The organization of WikiProject Essays, of which I am an an informal coordinator. WP:ESSAYS is categorizing Wikipedia's essays and ranking their impact with the assistance of a bot. This way we know which essays are most influential and which are hardly read, which is useful considering they used to be just a 1000 articles in a category with little to no organization. I personally tagged over 1000 essays with the project banner (which has abnormally inflated my Wikipedia talk page edit count), which are now all ranked according to their impact. We've learned through this process that only the top five percent of essays are really highly utilized. Most are not.
 * 3) * My work to seriously weaken the power of WP:OUTCOMES, which was inappropriate to its purpose. My problem with OUTCOMES was that it had become a set of rules instead of a description of actual AfD outcomes (e.g. editors were using it in AfD's: "All elementary schools are deleted, as per OUTCOMES.") Now it is descriptive instead of prescriptive once again, describing the past instead of dictating the future.
 * 4) *I'm proudest of my work on St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao which I created, got into WP:DYK, WP:GA, two peer reviews, two failed FACs, and now it is up for its third FAC and will most likely pass. The reason I'm proud of it is twofold: (1) I actually lived in Qingdao, went to the cathedral, interviewed the staff there, took pictures, found books on the subject in Chinese that only the staff had access to, and rephotographed old pictures unavailable anywhere else. I'm proud that I was able to do "hands-on research" in bringing this article together, creating some real quality for a subject that is difficult to access; (2) I created a high-quality article where none existed before. I think I'm going to do it again after this one passes FAC.
 * 5) 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?
 * I've only been involved in editing disputes with one user, and it was over WP:OUTCOMES. There were a lot of reverts, allegations of sockpuppetry (he had me investigated...when I was cleared he switched to meatpuppet allegations), some rudeness. Got to the point where other editors were asking him to concentrate on the issues and not on me. From the experience I came to realize that Wikipedia's civility rules and procedures currently do not provide for the basic respect that we are all due. The way I dealt with the situation was to bring it up on Wikiquette Alerts, where the person in question showed up and insulted me again, and the alert was not addressed by anyone. I suspect this is because the user is an administrator who has been around a while and has a lot of friends here. So I dealt with that by taking a step back, and now I'm actively involved in the Wikimedia Strategic Planning process, and a major proponent of strengthening civility controls in order to reduce attrition, new user biting, and encourage new contributors.
 * I've only been involved in editing disputes with one user, and it was over WP:OUTCOMES. There were a lot of reverts, allegations of sockpuppetry (he had me investigated...when I was cleared he switched to meatpuppet allegations), some rudeness. Got to the point where other editors were asking him to concentrate on the issues and not on me. From the experience I came to realize that Wikipedia's civility rules and procedures currently do not provide for the basic respect that we are all due. The way I dealt with the situation was to bring it up on Wikiquette Alerts, where the person in question showed up and insulted me again, and the alert was not addressed by anyone. I suspect this is because the user is an administrator who has been around a while and has a lot of friends here. So I dealt with that by taking a step back, and now I'm actively involved in the Wikimedia Strategic Planning process, and a major proponent of strengthening civility controls in order to reduce attrition, new user biting, and encourage new contributors.

 Reviews 

Review by PrincessofLlyr

Here are my comments after looking over your usespace and contributions. I think that covers everything. Overall, you seem to be doing a really good job. Keep it up! If you have any questions or comments, feel free to leave them here or on my talk page. PrincessofLlyr royal court 17:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You did a great job coordinating the GOCE backlog elimination drive. In fact, all of your work with various WikiProjects is great.
 * Your use of edit summaries is good.
 * As far as the conflict with Jclemens, I do not believe that your wikiquette alert was ignored due to his status. I find places like that to be backed up quite a bit, and if it's a sticky enough situation, sometimes people just don't want to get involved. As a personal belief, I think the alert and "concern" over his incivility was generally unnecessary. Just because someone is uncivil doesn't mean you have to immediately point them out for it. In most cases, that won't help the issue. Also, asserting that things are not being done in your favor because the other user is popular, a sysop, experienced user, etc. mostly doesn't help your case. While it is possible, most users see that and think, "Oh, another newbie claiming admin abuse. Boring." Just my take, which you are free to ignore. Also, I think it's good that you've moved past that and have not had any other major conflicts.
 * Your article work is very good.
 * I didn't "immediately point him out for it." Did you look at the date stamps? He started in on me December 12. I took six weeks of his disrespect and contempt before filing the alert on January 25. At what point did I assert that things were not being done in my favor because the other user is popular, a sysop, experienced user, etc? I didn't say that at the MEDCAB page, in the alert, or on WP:OUTCOMES talk page, even once. And on this page, I qualified it with "I suspect" which hardly makes it an "assertion." More like a "suspicion." ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 00:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that in many ways his comments were uncivil, but I was trying to propose another way you could deal with a similar situation should it, heaven forbid, occur in the future. Certainly, my preferred method is to always assume good faith of everyone, which leads me to avoid conflict. I was simply trying to propose that sometimes the easier thing is to leave it alone, but that is a personal belief and you are not in any way bound to it. Really, I think you've done a fine job of moving on to different work and putting this behind you. Please continue. My apologies for anything I said that offended you. PrincessofLlyr  royal court 03:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While the apology is kind, I didn't take any offense. I let it go (as you like to do) with Jclemens for quite some time. In a way, the experience was a good thing, as it has helped me formulate my general Wikiview when it comes to civility. That is: We're volunteers of a nonprofit organization, and in that way, we're not unlike people that volunteer at any other nonprofit organization. Nonprofits would not allow their volunteers to be treated with disrespect, because in addition to most nonprofits respecting basic human dignity, most nonprofits recognize that people who feel disrespected cease volunteering. Because of this, volunteers are treated very graciously. The WikiMedia Foundation is no different, and as I volunteer my time for this group, I deserve the same basic respect that the Red Cross, the local animal shelter, and my local social action agency give me when I volunteer for them. If the WikiMedia Foundation isn't providing this (through its policies), it is failing us. Further, it is losing good editors, thereby hampering its own mission. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 04:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Tommy2010
 * I'd just like to add that if you need something, I don't think it's necessary to ask the same thing on 5 different User talk pages . A problem with an editor should be reported at ANI, the blocking admin or WP:AN, otherwise you do good work around here (: _ Tommy2010  [message] 20:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't appropriate for ANI, as there was no "I" (incident). There was a general pattern of problematic behavior, which is more appropriate for RfC/U, which requires two editors to certify the report. I contacted five editors (four of which had problems with this IP editor, one of which was an admin recommended by one of the four) to ask if they wanted to certify. That's how building an RfC/U works: you have to let people know. And half of them added something to the report, so I don't see it as a bad thing. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 23:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)