User:TheronJ/Advocacy/WikiWoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User:TheronJ | Advocacy

Contents

[edit] Initial questions

WikiWoo, I'd be happy to help in response to your request for advocacy.

I'm still coming up to speed on your problem. Let me lay out what I understand so far. If I've gotten anything wrong, or you think there's anything else I need to know, please feel free to let me know.

My Understanding:

  1. You joined Wikipedia a few weeks ago, originally as WikiRoo.
  2. Your major interest is in pages relating to Ontario politics.
  3. At least two pages you created were deleted. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Maloney, and a number of your other Ontario related edits are getting reverted.
  4. Lately, a number of these conflicts appear to be regarding the Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario.
  5. You have subsequently changed your name, first to WikiDoo, now to User:WikiWoo.
  6. You feel that some editors are now following you around and preventing you from making good faith edits.

Is that basically the problem? If so, then I have some ideas of how to help. Thanks, TheronJ 16:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is generally the problem. It took me awhile to understand the Wiki culture at first so I made my share of mistakes before I started geting into the swing of things. But now I see this small group 3 or 4 people at most kind of picking on me regardless what edits I make. Feels more like they are trying to frustrate me on purpose to see a negative response out of me like kids playing a game.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My diagnosis

I don't have the background to judge you or the other editors at this time, but my guess is that you've fallen into a familiar pattern for new editors. You made some early edits that fell afoul of one WikiPolicy or another, so a group of existing editors got frustrated with you. They probably used some harsh language with you, and you with them, and they're now reverting any edits you make that aren't pretty close to perfect Wikipedia policy.

The good news is that you can get out of that trap. The bad news is that chances are, no one else is going to do it for you. IMHO, the only reliable way out is to spend a month or so making exemplary edits that meet Wikipedia citation requirements with verifiable, reliable cites for every factual statement, while all the while remaining a model of civil behavior. TheronJ 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another question

A lot of my suggestions may depend on what your goals are. Do you primarily want to:

  1. develop into an experienced Wiki editor;
  2. continue to edit the Ontario politics pages, but without further reversions; or
  3. prove to the world that you are right and your enemies are wrong?

I'm not judging you, and I will advise you on any of those goals, but, IMHO, #1 is the easiest, #2 is doable, and #3 will only lead to heartache. TheronJ 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Step 1 - A reading list

Whichever of the above is your primary goal, I think the following policies and guidelines will be most helpful to you.

  • WP:AGF - I think you've been getting yourself into some trouble by not writing as if you assume good faith. In many cases, you can resolve your differences by writing as if you assume that the other editors also want to create the best encyclopedia possible. In fact, it's best to write as if you think the other editors have good faith even if you secretly suspect that they do not for two reasons.
    • First, in some cases you will be pleasantly surprised. If you write as if you are trying to make the best encyclopedia possible and would honestly like to discuss your differences, you might find the other editors coming around, even the real jerks.
    • Second, if you ever do end up invoking the "final resort" dispute resolution procedures, a record where you are the reasonable one in all the debates will pay off.
  • WP:CIVIL - This is similar to assuming good faith. Especially when some son of a #!@*@ is turning your crank, it's important to write as if you were sitting in a conservatory somewhere, drinking tea and talking to your 93-year-old great grandmother. Go out of your way to explain that you appreciate the other editors' involvement, and you think they're good editors, and you're interested in what they have to say, but that you disagree because of whatever. You may even find yourselves making a better page together than either of you could alone.
  • Verifiability, reliable sources, and proper citations. These three pages will get you past your biggest problems on the Ontario pages. If you take the time to make sure that all your factual statements are backed up by verifiable, reliable sources listed in perfect cite form, you will be immune to most of the the objections people are raising to your edits. In fact, the only major objection possible will be . . .
  • Notability: Definitely read this page, and maybe skim its talk page, so you get some ideas about how people address notability. I'm saving it to discuss later, because it's complicated, but it seems as if most of the more recent objections people have raised to your edits are, at core, notability objections.
  • Harassment: I'm directing you to this policy in the interest of full disclosure, and because you've complained that a group of editors is giving you grief. However, I encourage you strongly not to accuse anyone of harassment or wikistalking until we're done with our discussion. (Say, until the end of next week at the earliest). Once the "wikistalking" or "trolling" arguments come out, it's almost impossible to step down.

That reading should give you some good background, whatever you decide to do. Thanks, TheronJ 19:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I realy appreciate your comments. They should proove invaluable. Thanks.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 22:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just to show you an example of the extreemes I have to put up with

Check the history of this page to see the minor edit made even here by one of my adversaries. These guys are hanging on my every word and movement. It's like having stalkers following you around. Maybe I should take it as a compliment... kind of like having paparazzi following me around telling everyone about my edits with their twists trying to poison peoples opinions on my good work here. Maybe there could be a National Inquirer version of Wiki for them to play on with gossip articles and all.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki, which page did you want me to look at? Thanks, TheronJ 13:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, isn't using the word adversaries a bit - well, adversarial? Wiki, people are actually trying to help here! Just zis Guy you know? 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I was refering to this very page here. The history shows one letter being corrected by User:Osgoodelawyer one acting adversarial to my work here regardless of the subject matter.Wiki The Humble Woo 17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict). Ah, now I see. WikiWoo was referring to this edit,[1] which I hadn't noticed. For what it's worth: (1) it might have been slightly better manners for OzLawyer to have made some note of his edit on the page or in the edit summary, given that he was editing a post signed by me, but (2) since the edit was (a) correct and (b) not very controversial, there's certainly no harm done.
Wiki, this would be an example of my advice to assume good faith, even if you privately suspect bad faith. Oz is obviously paying close attention to you, but it's a public encyclopedia, and even if he's a malignant jerk (I don't know if he is or isn't, and won't judge), many of his edits seem harmless, or even helpful, like this one. Let's work on your next edit, and see how it goes.TheronJ 17:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no issue with the miniscule edit being correct or not... but this is an example of the nit picking I have put up with which changed me from my normal "Humble" self to the "Badass" I became after starting off respectful and misunderstood.Wiki The Humble Woo 20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That's fair enough, and I absolutely understand why that's frustrating. Unfortunately, I only know one way to get Oz to stop following you around, and that's to get a whole bunch of "nearly perfect" edits under your belt. Once you do that, one of two things will happen: either (1) Oz will lose interest in following you, or (2) you'll have made a good enough record to be successful at getting him off your back through a variety of means which I will explain later, since they won't work now. (Since I'm nigh-religious about assuming good faith, I assume that case 1 will apply, but if we end up in case 2, I will be glad to advocate for you). TheronJ 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My suggestions

Wiki, I am going to assume that of the various possible goals I asked you about above, you would primarily prefer to continue editing Ontario-related articles. With that in mind, let me make a couple suggestions of what you can do to resolve the current set of conflicts.

In general, if you want to keep editing pages like this, where you are outnumbered by a group of more experienced editors, you will need to become an almost perfect Wikipedia editor - civil, willing to explore compromises, and making good, well-cited additions to the pages. Here are some specific suggestions.

  1. For now, take a short break from editing the Ontario pages. Let's take a couple days to come up with a plan, then get back into them one change at a time. They'll still be there, and if you want, you can still take notes of changes you would like to make.
  2. Take "BadAss" out of your sig. I know that you're entitled to free expression, but it's probably going to give people a bad first impression of you, especially if administrators start getting involved.
  3. If you like, we can announce that I'm going to be advocating for you and that we will be working to address your concerns and those of your co-editors.
  4. Absolutely, absolutely, assume good faith and be civil. Don't accuse people of censorship or of being a gestapo.

After all that, I suggest that we pick one issue (edits to a specific page, creation of a specific page, some user's complaints on your talkpage) and discuss how to resolve that issue. Once we've made some progress on that, let's pick another. Thanks, TheronJ 14:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, I am taking your advice. I will start by making detailed artcles of interest off line from scratch and take a week or so to put everything I can put together all at the one time, links and all. Rather than try making small edits and trying to fight to keep little things alive, this will also allow me to put all my energy into the published material instead of wastinig time fighting over every single sentence or word. Then if a battle becomes necessary it will be over more effort aand worth it and get more information resolved at a time that's worth fighting over.Wiki The Humble Woo 17:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and LOL regarding your new sig. If you would like to start with a large set of edits, may I suggest that you post it to a user subpage first so that we can discuss it? After that, if you get additional criticism regarding the new page, I could help you out in responding to the criticism. Thanks again, TheronJ 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An example of my suggestions in action

Wiki, I hope you don't think I'm meddling, and that these suggestions are helpful. I took a quick look at your recent contributions to see how you've been doing, and let me say:

  1. Good work. I appreciate that you're making fewer changes and working hard at civility while we get you out of your current situation, and your edits are much less likely to cause offense as a result.
  2. If you can handle a few more suggestions, I made some changes to one of the pages you've been working on, Chief administrative officer, to show you an example of what I mean. (Again, your edits are fine, I just wanted to show you what I suggest). Here's what I did, in order:
    1. I took a look at the last sentence, regarding municipal officers, and saw it wasn't cited.
    2. I tried running a google search for possible citation sources, but none of the hits looked like they would be good candidates for the reliable source criteria.
    3. Then I tried the same search on google books. (Another choice would be go to the library, possibly after a little poking around on WorldCat looking for reliable sources).
    4. The first hit in Google books looked pretty good, so I poked around to figure out how to add the citation. I started at WP:CITE, and clicking on the "see alsos" led me to an explanation of how to use "ref" codes and a description of the book citation template.
    5. Now that I had a source and a way to cite it, I added it.[2]
    6. After that, I checked the next few pages of hits in Google books, and found another one that looked good, and added some more context to the ways in which CAO is used for municipal officials. I added that one, and also fixed some formatting issues in the first reference.[3]
    7. Finally, I took a look at the talk page to see why you had gotten reverted. I saw that Oz had some concerns with your request for citations that a corporate CAO was an officer. I knew that you and Oz had a history, but was careful to stay civil. I assumed Oz just wants to make the best encyclopedia possible (which I actually assume he does, but as I've said, it doesn't matter, because I would act like I assumed it even if I secretly didn't), and responded with (a) an agreement of where we had common ground (that he was correct that a Chief Administrative Officer probably is an "Officer") and (b) an explanation of my position (that Wikipedia:Common knowledge doesn't normally allow us to assume even fairly obvious stuff, and that it's almost always better to have references.) [4]
    8. Now, the actual perfect thing to do would have been to find some cites for the corporate stuff too, but I felt like I had done enough work for the night, plus I had to write all this up. ;-)

It was a pain, but at the end of the day, I think finding some reliable citations for the municipal stuff was helpful - it made the sentence a little more accurate, and it has some citations so people can see what the encyclopedia is relying on. With any luck, Oz or someone will do the same thing for the corporate stuff, and we'll all have a better encyclopedia as a result, plus he and I have a little experience working together. (Just the same, I won't press him too hard to include it - somebody will do it sooner or later, and nobody is getting paid).

Sorry for being a busibody, and for using myself up as what I call a "nearly perfect editor," which I know isn't particularly. Still, I hope that was helpful, and, again, good work on your recent edits. TheronJ 00:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some more suggestions

Wiki, based on your recent edits, I think I understand your goals a little better, and can give you a little advice, which you can take for what it's worth.

  1. If I were you, I would avoid using the word "censorship." I understand what you mean, but it's going to turn off neutral editors and admins, and won't convince anyone. With the way Wikipedia discussion works, it is just as good (and in fact considerably better) to say "In my opinion, this information is well sourced, verifiable, and encyclopedic, and should therefore stay. Is there a compromise that would satisfy your concerns?" as it is to say "Stop censoring my edits!"
  2. I think it's worth taking a step back and thinking about what you want to achieve on Wikipedia and how to do it. Accusing people of being in a coordinated effort to get you is probably not the way. (As an example, you apparently believe that the effort to delete the prequalified page is a coordinated vandalism page. However, the deletion discussion indicates that a lot of experienced editors, many of whom have not had any experience with you, think the page isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. I would ask you to consider the possibility that there's still a little work necessary to get your contributions formatted to the Wikipedia standard.

I think it might be helpful for us to discuss a single set of edits - if you pick something out, I could give you specific advice of how to get it into Wikipedia with less resistance than you've been getting to date. Would you like to pick something for us to work on together?

Thanks, TheronJ 13:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing advocacy

I am closing this advocacy - WikiWoo was indefinitely banned.[5] TheronJ 14:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My desk

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User%7ETheronJ_Advocacy_WikiWoo_a7d1.html"