Wikipedia:Editor review/TimVickers

TimVickers
I wanted to get feedback about how I might handle conflicts a little better. Tim Vickers 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

User:Krator

This review is from a request at WT:3O, and specifically deals with discussion behaviour and dispute resolution, from a debate-centric angle. Or, more clearly: I am not giving a value judgement of the user here, just analysing and criticising his discussion techniques. Before starting, I must note that I have copied the linked sections below in a sandbox. Any quotes can be quickly looked up there using Ctrl+F or similar techniques. I did not paste the raw text into the sandbox in chronological order, but I will try to adhere to that order as much as possible.

 Large, bold captions for a small paragraph of a sentence or two are not functional. ("Objections to copy-edit")
 * Good point.

Get to the point. Early in the discussion ("Your note" and "Copy-editing of policies") User:Slim Virgin was clearly hinting at a deeper, underlying problem (than the copy edit on OR) than User:Tim Vickers was discussing.( SlimVirgin (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC) ) Do not just ignore these statements. One of the following is the case: a) No underlying problem exists, and one of the editors involved is alleging this to strengthen his case. Exposing such a fallacy will strengthen the opposite side and ignoring it will have the converse effect as cabal-like theories emerge. b) An underlying problem exists, and one of the editors involved is employing a valid argument. If the opposite side ignores this argument, this will strengthen the editor's case as any good argument would. Though this problem was addressed later, doing that earlier could have prevented 100kb of discussion later. Days later, this was still discussed (or rather, ignored) on "Edit warring at Wikipedia:No original research". This issue is the principal flaw of User:Tim Vickers in his way of handling the discussion.
 * I personally saw this as a linking of two unconnected issues and a debating tactic, but this was only my POV and these two contrasting views of what the problem is probably what caused the issue to be so difficult to resolve. Tim Vickers 02:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Write that it is linking unconnected issues, and not useful, or not applicable. Do not just ignore it (see below and above). --User:Krator (t c) 08:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this was the core of the problem. I was talking about a set of copy-edits on one page, while SlimVirgin was talking about a general approach to editing policy. As a result we talked past each other and I felt that she was trying to avoid commenting on specifics and own the pages, while she felt I was trying to ignore the bigger picture. Tim Vickers 14:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. My point is: do not totally ignore any points at all. Stating "I do not feel discussing this here is useful" or similar is much better in cases like this. --User:Krator (t c) 20:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(Extending the above) Employing strategic absence is not a good thing. In "Edit warring at Wikipedia:No original research", as soon as a discussion starts to address a broader issue (in this case the whole "Scientific POV" case) comments by User:Tim Vickers are absent. Though this may not be intentional, this leaves a potent argument in the hands of the other side, and lack of a response may be judged as a confirmation of the argument by others. For both one's own interests (convincing others of a point) and the discussion's (addressing all points), address a point when it is raised, or at least acknowledge or deny it.
 * I was asleep! :) Tim Vickers 02:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not play the "Uncivil!" card. ( Tim Vickers 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC) & Tim Vickers 04:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC) ) Stating that another editor is uncivil, not assuming good faith and ignoring the etiquette is something to watch out for, even if only briefly and without links. It is like writing "I do not have any valid argument". Unless experiencing personal grief because of another editor's words, discuss before alleging any of the aforementioned three. Ad hominem is not strengthening an editors argument in the eyes of observers like myself. Further, if a change in the other editors behaviour is sought (in this case, a specific response), repeatedly requesting just that usually has more effect and is nicer. A good way of judging whether to head this route is to ask oneself, "what is my goal?". If it is blocking or damaging another user, this is the way. Changing an article is not happening any sooner, and the behaviour of the editor whose name is on the card is not changing earlier.
 * True, nothing is gained here. Either incivility is obvious to all, so there is no point in pointing it out, or alleging it without substance raises tension without any positive effect. This is something I will avoid carefully in the future. Tim Vickers 02:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the other discussions on the policy talk page and the user talk page I read (see sandbox, discussions on those pages before July 1) are just a good discussion, and I cannot give any useful feedback for improvement on those topics. The use of sarcasm, unnecessary repetition, and statements bordering on etiquette violations marks a writing by a stressed editor. Proofread any writings before saving, and when recognising these elements, take a break. For example Tim Vickers 12:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC) does not introduce any new elements, and it is easily recognisable that that note does not contain any constructive content, without ever reading the replies - or even the rest of the discussion. See also 3. If one's goal is to get the other editor blocked, or damage his reputation, this is not the way.
 * I think that is certainly a point in this discussion where I lost my cool. Something to watch out for. Tim Vickers 02:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not WikiLawyer. In fact Haemo 00:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC) raised this point very early in the discussion - in favour of User:Tim Vickers. The classic example of WikiLawyering is "X is a guideline and not a policy". I have heard that argument often, and it is always a very weak and unconstructive argument. For discussion on this subject, please use WT:LAWYER.

Overall, I applaud the way this conflict was handled, as only few editors involved were being unreasonable (something often seen), and those were not the principal editors. Only when the temperature was rising the etiquette was dropped, and even then it was ten times more pleasant than all the deep pits WP:3O has given me insight to. I encourage User:Tim Vickers to learn from the above, or to attack me mercilessly for writing such nonsense. Especially #2 could have prevented a lot of unnecessary discussion. --User:Krator (t c) 00:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good points, no attacks necessary. Tim Vickers 02:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gnixon

I've interacted with Tim a few times. Here are a couple of quick value judgments to complement the excellent advice given above: Best wishes, Gnixon 12:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
 * You once handled a complaint from me very well.
 * In your recent, frustrating discussions, you displayed an impressive amount of patience and civility in the face of rudely dismissive comments.

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.


 * View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * The articles I have managed to pass through the FA process.
 * 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?
 * This is the reason I am requesting the review. A recent conflict with User:SlimVirgin has made me consider if I need to improve my skills in dispute avoidance and resolution.
 * Discussions on the article talk page here and more fully here.
 * Discussions on user talk pages here and on my talk page here.
 * Discussions at ANI here.
 * Discussions at ANI here.

Comments by MONGO Looking over some of the discussions Tim has had on verifiability and elsewhere, I don't see anything problematic. Policy pages are hard to make changes too. I had that same issue with the no personal attacks policy recently. I think it sadly routine that when arguments get heated, we start judging the motives and or "bias" or those we are in disagreements with. In some cases, we are completely correct when we identify questionable motives...but writing what those motives are is rarely helpful in solving the dilemma. SlimVirgin is one of our most valuable contributors, and has a lot of experience working on policies. That is not to say we can't do it even better, or make changes that are improvements. There is no reason any editor, no matter how long they have been around should ever own any article or policy, so all helpful suggestions or even the occasional boldness should be reflected on by the "older" or more experienced editors, especially if they are made by someone who is here to help make Wikipedia better, as Tim is obviously trying to do. Unilateral reverts of changes just to maintain the status quo are insulting and almost always lead to arguments. On the other hand, whenever anyone, no matter who they are, commences substantive changes to high profile articles or policies, they are probably going to encounter opposition. Change is hard to accept, especially if these are changes made to areas we might have helped develop ourselves, as it is seen as a rejection of our work...so, as human beings, we take that personally. However, as much as possible, all changes to policy requires a lot of discussion on talk pages, especially if those changes are alterations of more than just some minor wording. It appears that Tim did far better than others in discussing these changes on associated talk pages. Cool is a decent essay that is worth reading in regards to heated exchanges. From what I see, Tim did not violate civility or no personal attacks and is working with others to hammer out a consensus on the verifiability policy. Compared to disagreements I have had with others on difficult subjects, Tim has shown excellent restraint overall. I just have the belief that it is the nature of the beast that in an environment such as Wikipedia, where people of different cultures and opinions have all come together in one forum, that some arguments are inevitable. How we handle those arguments is the key and I think Tim is doing fine.--MONGO 20:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionals from Dfrg.msc

Borrowed from, I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.

Speedy Delete or not: 


 * 1) CSD1
 * Delete if no/few Google hits on Dan Morrow or "Eton Road + Band"


 * 1) CSD2
 * Not


 * 1) CSD3
 * Delete


 * 1) CSD4
 * Delete


 * 1) CSD5
 * Delete if no/few Google hits on Nicola Packett or "Q + Band"

Vandalism or or not: 


 * 1)
 * Vandalism if a Google search for "Maggie Stapleton" returns no Pokemon-related hits.


 * 1)
 * Vandalism


 * 1)
 * Vandalism


 * 1)
 * Not vandalism


 * 1)
 * Not vandalism, but bad formatting so I would probably revert but not warn.


 * 1)
 * Not vandalism.

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 Comments from Seraphimblade 

Unfortunately, it is all too true that any proposed change to a policy page can quickly devolve into ownership issues and immediate reverts of all changes, combined with an "It's fine, don't touch" attitude. I wish I had the solution to that here, but I don't, and certainly you aren't the first person to lose your cool a bit in such a scenario, nor will you probably be the last. This being said, if you feel your blood starting to boil, walk away for a little bit. Take a walk, make yourself some coffee, tea, whatever beverage you prefer, grab something to eat, catch up something you've been meaning to do. Even half an hour that way, and you'll find yourself returning to the discussion refreshed and ready to respond firmly but civilly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)