Wikipedia:Editor review/jc37

jc37*
No statement per se, just wondering what other editors think when reviewing my contribution history. jc37 02:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Answer to question 1
 * CfD mostly these days I suppose. And lately, several proposals, including some concerning a new user-rights group, and WP:RRA.
 * 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.
 * Answer to question 2
 * I dunno about stress, but I wasn't happy with how I was treated after commenting at an Arbcom clarification case a while back. What I had said was not dissimilar from what those who had supported the individual under discussion had said, yet (in my estimation) I was treated as if I was an adversary of some sort (and then some).
 * I dunno about stress, but I wasn't happy with how I was treated after commenting at an Arbcom clarification case a while back. What I had said was not dissimilar from what those who had supported the individual under discussion had said, yet (in my estimation) I was treated as if I was an adversary of some sort (and then some).

 Reviews 


 * I always find it strange when an active admin put themselves for review (like it recently was with Dennis Brown for example). Usually the review is to get feedback from the community, and experienced admins should know without review what they are doing and how they react. I guess in your case the review request might be related with this, and I think at the moment the ball is at your side. If you indicate whether you accept / not accepr / have learned from / ignored the experience, especially the opposes votes, then that would give a good direction to the discussion. I think to review your contribution and to ignore this RfB is to risk putting things out of context.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I actually wasn't thinking of the RfB. (I had intended waiting a while yet before deciding whether to consider requesting those tools again.) As I said above, I was just looking for feedback. I think it's kinda nice to get a bit of feedback from others.
 * My motivations aside, with apologies, I didn't understand what you meant when you said "...I think at the moment the ball is at your side." - jc37 20:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing really special, may be not the best wording, but with all my respect to you I find difficult to evaluate somebody who recently failed an RfB without really discussing the issues why they failed the RfB, and to discuss these issues it would be helpful to have your view on the issue. Btw I did not imply you want to file another RfB (you may wish to do it or you may not wish, I do not think it is relevant now). --Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. ok.
 * Well, to try to answer, off the top of my head I seem to recall that (besides those who had some past axe to grind with some past interaction or admin action I had taken) most of the opposes were some combination of: "I think that you tend to edit/collaborate on pages which are what I consider cruft pages, and that disqualifies you for bureaucratship"; "I don't think you should add such questions to rfAs"; "You haven't been active enough since your last wikibreak"; "You haven't been active much at RfA since your wikibreak"; "You haven't been active enough on the pages that Bureaucrats typically help out with"; "You don't yet know/understand the ins and outs of the processes/policies yet that bureaucrats help out with";
 * So with those in mind, I've been active since then. (And I think someone would be hard pressed to say I haven't been active at RfA since then : ) - And I've helped out some at bureaucrat-related pages (though honestly not much yet, I have gone to Mbisanz for advice a few times)
 * I addressed the RfA questions situation (I attempted to have some discussions at WT:RFA, with mixed results; and I also re-edited the questions related to some concerns), though accepting that there are those who will continue to disagree.
 * And btw, thank you, I hadn't thought about the RfB oppose reasons in quite some time. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to think over my contributions over the last year with that as the perspective. I've just been carrying on as I typically do. It's interesting to look at my contributions through that filter.
 * All that aside, is there something else you think I am missing? - jc37 21:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this input. I now need to take time to really go through your contributions are return here with a review.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, ok, ty : ) - jc37 21:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, I thought I could have enough time to do everything in one take, but I do not, so I will try to do it in several portions. You are welcome to interrupt me, to ask additional questions, to do whatever you want, but I do not expect this. Also, if you feel this review can interfere destructively with your Arbcom nomination, I could postpone it until the end of the elections.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I honestly consider this sort of review to be more important or at the very least more informative, than the elections. After all, that's merely a request to help out with additional tools and responsibilities. This is a review of how you (the community) perceive(s) I have contributed (the good or not-so-good) to the project. - jc37 23:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Review by Ymblanter
 * The first thing I see from your contribution list is that you used to have long inactivity periods. The current activity period lasts slightly less than a year, preceded by a year of almost total inactivity. For this reason, it only make sense to discuss the edits made since January 2012. You probably never, at least not in the last several years, positioned yourself as a content creator, and you recent edits in the articles do not come in a significant number. The majority of edits are in WP, WT, and User Talk spaces. I assume they should be conflict resolution / maintenance edits, and next I am going to trace a couple of conflicts you have been recently involved into and see how you handled them (or possibly I will not be able to find any, I will see).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right that since returning from a semi-wikibreak, I have mostly been involved in helping out in project-related (and admin-related) activities. I did start a requested article, but didn't get much beyond stubbifying.
 * Guess I shouldn't be surprised at "what have you done for us lately" : )
 * Thanks again for your efforts. Speaking as someone who regularly extensively goes through editors' contributions, I understand the work involved : ) - jc37 22:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I went through the contributions, and, whereas I do not have the full picture, I have some impressions, which are may be good to be posted here.
 * First, you seem to be creative and often generate interesting ideas, in particular, concerning the strategic development. It seems to me that sometimes you have difficulties to shoot your own ideas down, but you also sometimes do not have energy to continue with the best suggestions, so that they do not get implemented.
 * I do not have any issues with your maintenance work like XfD, though a higher percentage of this work would be welcome.
 * The major share of your contribution seems to be in discussions, on noticeboards, on talk pages and elsewhere. Whereas often you contributions to these discussions are constructive, sometimes you are cryptic, and it is difficult to understand your standpoint (this is just a random example, which I would never be able to get what it is about if your adversary would not start the discussion). You also seem to reply to every reply, sometimes even until your opponent gets exhausted and stops replying. This unwillingness to stop pursuing things was what ruined your RfB, and it is also the issue which was raised in some voter's guides (the Bishonen incident is an illustration).
 * I have definitely seen cases when creative users who had sometimes difficulties to stop turned into reliable and creative users. But this takes time. If you want my recommendations, I would say - more content work, more maintenance work, less general discussion participation, and may be for the discussions trying to optimize the outcome, not insisting on replying to everybody who seems to misunderstand you or just disagree with you.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Review by Dennis Brown
 * I'm going to wait on a review, but I wanted to address one point, that this is an editor review, not an admin review. We admin are not super editors.  I would argue that on average, we are just average editors, for that matter.  So I like the idea of an admin seeking review every year or so, to not only remind us why were are here, to edit the encyclopedia, but to allow our fellow editors to critique us as if we didn't have the admin bit: as editors.  I assume all critique (admin or editor related) would be welcome, but it is healthy to put ourselves in the public square, vulnerable, and allow others to poke us with sticks, and this is the right forum for it.  I would have to review your actual article contribs to give a review and will try to later. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No big arguement from me. And thank you for taking the time and effort : ) - jc37 22:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ymblanter pretty much hit the nail on the head. It also seems that you often give knee-jerk reactions to anything that seems like a conspiracy, even if it isn't. There's frequently good reasons for privacy or for why something isn't discussed on wiki. I'd suggest joining OTRS to get some experience. The other thing I'd try to work on is giving short and coherent responses/explanations. Sometimes your writing style is very hard to understand (as evidenced by your RFAR statement on the Penyulap issue). Try to make statements like that short and concise - if everyone else is able to stay within the word limit, you certainly can too. --Rschen7754 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever saying that there shouldn't be privacy.
 * And I'll cop to verbosity : ) - jc37 16:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Going to add to this: as evidenced by Requests for comment/Arbcom, confidentiality, and oversight/Straw poll, sometimes you won't take no for an answer, even when you've been told no several times by the community. On Wikipedia, we operate by consensus, but you keep believing that you're right and that all the functionaries and ArbCom members and admins and other members of the community are dead wrong, and persist in trying to ram through what you want. By doing this, you tear down the pillar of Wikipedia that you claim to hold. --Rschen7754 15:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus comes from discussion. And the community isn't merely the first few who show up. It's part of why RfCs have 30 days. And I've withdrawn proposals before (one is linked on my talk page.) And no proposal can be or should be "rammed through". Community consensus is required. - jc37 16:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)