Wikipedia:Editor review/OpenFuture

OpenFuture
I have the last months been accused of being a revert warrior, a vandal, and accused of personal attacks by User:Pmanderson and User:The_Four_Deuces. User:The_Four_Deuces raised an WQA, which concluded that there was no reason for the WQA, but still these two users and sometimes other use both this as arguments to not discuss things, and User:The_Four_Deuces uses it as an excuse for others bad behavior, basically saying that if I can behave badly, then others can. So I would like a review by non-involved editors to look at my edits and behavior and see if they really are that bad and what, if anything, can be done to improve them and avoid these types of criticisms. OpenFuture (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I think my best contributions have been in cleaning up various articles related to North American runestones, like Kensington Runestone, Heavener Runestone, Spirit Pond runestones and related to that Newport Tower (Rhode Island). My edits there center on getting rid of pseudo-archaeological theories with no reliable sourcing.
 * 1) 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?
 * The most stressful in editing disputes is when people stonewall or in other way simply ignore arguments. I try to deal with it by taking a deep breath and continuing like it didn't happen.
 * The most stressful in editing disputes is when people stonewall or in other way simply ignore arguments. I try to deal with it by taking a deep breath and continuing like it didn't happen.

 Reviews 


 * Looking at the WQA, I think it would be fairer to say that the result was indecisive, with a result of "stuck" rather than "resolved." I haven't read all the discussions you've had at Talk:List of wars between democracies and Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes, but for the most part I would characterize your comments as good-faith attempts to engage in the discussion ... until you become frustrated.  Then I would say you squint toward incivility, oftentimes crossing the line.  I don't think anyone defended your use of vandalism warning templates during what was an edit war at the WQA.  Here you "resolved" a WQA after taking part in the discussion, which was heated; I would not say that discussion had come to a consensual conclusion, and so that too was a bit tendentious.  After being blocked for a nasty edit, and having the appeal of that block denied, you entered into a long argument on your talk page.  Looking to the articles you reference in your statement, I would say that you are on solid ground on the content issues, but your tone on the talk pages is derisive straight out of the gate.  I would suggest keeping in mind that just because you have explained the same elementary point countless times does not mean that the person you're speaking to has heard it explained well even once, and that nobody chooses to be ignorant:  jumping down the throats of people who have been misled will not enlighten them.  The fact that 44% of your edits are to talk pages, and another 13% to user talk pages, with only 25% to the mainspace suggests to me that you might be squandering your energies arguing with people who will not be persuaded when the project could be better served if they were directed toward expanding and providing citations for its articles.  Your current wikibreak is probably a good idea.   RJC  TalkContribs 21:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)