Wikipedia:Editor review/Weaponbb7

Weaponbb7
I am a wikipedian editor who follows NRM topics and other taboos. I have recently been accused of Wikilawyering by two separate editors in a discussion on the KKK page. I have also been involved on a recent RFC request on another user. I would like review of my own actions in the past two weeks or so. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I have assisted in the overhaul of Twelve Tribes (New religious movement) as well as sat in on many discussions on talk pages of interest
 * 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?
 * I have recently been accused of Wikilawyering by two separate editors in a disscusion on the KKK page. I have also been involved on a recent RFC request on another user. I would like to think i handled things appropriately. Thus i come here for honest review.
 * I have recently been accused of Wikilawyering by two separate editors in a disscusion on the KKK page. I have also been involved on a recent RFC request on another user. I would like to think i handled things appropriately. Thus i come here for honest review.

 Reviews  Greetings! I've done a quick review of your contributions. I'm going to start with a fairly standard, broad-view review, and then focus specifically on the RFC, the Wikilawyering bit, and your work on Twelve Tribes. Here are the results of my quick review of your contributions:'''
 * User conduct


 * Edit summaries: You could stand to improve here. You currently have a 71% summary rate on major edits, and a 65% on your last 150 major edits. This isn't bad, certainly, but neither is it particularly good. It's probably not news to you, but it is certainly true: edit summaries are -extremely- important, and not enough people pay attention to how important they are. This is arguably particularly the case with an editor such as yourself who is focused on editing potentially controversial topics. Generally speaking, one would want that number at 95% or above. Either way, it's an easy thing to fix :).


 * Talk page edits and general attitude: My -sense-, and please let me qualify this by saying that this is a quick review, not the product of hours of work, is that you -aim- at being a level-headed, AGF-type editor. For example, your last post to User talk:Nefariousski is the kind of thing one likes to see -- acknowledgement of good thinking on the part of another editor with whom you have philosophical disagreements. On the other hand, based on the RFC (which I'll get to) and some other postings elsewhere, I get the sense that you sometimes tend to lose your cool a bit. Which is, frankly, fine, it happens to everyone. Just try and be aware of it and avoid interacting with people if you're feeling "riled up." Your head's definitely in the right place, I just think your enthusiasm for the points you are trying to make gets the better of you at times.


 * Edits


 * Automated Edits: A staggering 0% automated editing on 1313 edits. You're a content guy. Props to you. This is coming from someone with almost 9,000 edits, 60% of which are automated, hehe. I'm jealous.


 * Article vs non-article: Unsurprisingly, a plurality of your edits are in the article space. 7.07% are in the Wikipedia space, which is interesting, although I suppose it makes sense for someone who is working in controversial topics.


 * RFC


 * This is the problem area, if you ask me, and it looks like it's part of the reason you wanted a review. The anti-semitism claim, which I infer you tossed out lightly (you backpedal on it a bit after someone reacts sharply) without necessarily thinking about what a significant charge that is to make, is serious. This is definitely an example of what I was referring to above in the "talk page edits and general attitude" section. Be very, very careful when throwing things like that out there. Frankly, don't even do it unless it's just blindingly obvious. I am not going to judge the RFC as a whole -- that's basically what the RFC is for, eh? :) -- but I am concerned that it's a bit of an overreaction. The user you're RFC'ing is provocative, yes, but he/she seems to be skating a fine enough line that it's not really cause for any kind of official intervention. But, again, that is literally one editor's (mine) opinion. Take it for what you will.


 * Wikilawyering


 * Here, I'm afraid, I am having a tough time coming up with a conclusive opinion. It's a difficult debate to follow, and I'm far from having an opinion on it. I will say that you appeared to be somewhere in the vicinity of Wikilawyering, insofar as you were throwing a number of policies back at persons who seemed, to me, to be applying a reasonable and well-sourced conclusion to the debate. Either way, it looks like the debate came to a consensus, and I think you were wise to accept it, so kudos there. I wish I had a stronger opinion on this -- I have no idea if this is helpful to you.


 * Twelve Tribes


 * Excellent, excellent work. I took one look at the talk page, saw an enormous number of concerns crossed out with and followed with "rewrote with sources" by you, and that pretty much told the story there. Excellent job.


 * Summary


 * It's clear to me that you are well-intentioned, and in general your interactions with other editors are positive. Always try stay -positive- in tone. It's possible to push your side of a debate without losing positivity, even when your debate opponent is being uncivil (which appears to be the case in several of your conflicts).


 * Be careful with the Wikilawyering, but if that's the only time that you've been accused of it, I wouldn't worry about it at all. Obviously, if you keep getting called a Wikilawyer, something's wrong, but just the once...no biggie.


 * If I haven't stressed enough above that it's awesome that you are: a) obviously passionately devoted to article content improvement and b) interested in working in difficult, controversial topics ... then it should be stressed here. That's excellent. A lot of people shy away from the topics you are diving into. Good stuff.

I think that's about it for me. This was intended to be a mostly positive review, with a few points of constructive criticism -- I hope it came across that way, I hope this was helpful! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  06:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)