Wikipedia:Editor review/Rama's Arrow 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Rama's Arrow

Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) - I am requesting my colleagues to give me a second review as I feel the need to obtain honest criticism and suggestions on improvement before I consider a second RfA. I invite all comments from everyone on this page. Additionally:

  1. I strongly request you to ask me questions, basically discuss any issues or concerns you may have. You can learn more about me and I can hope to understand your views better.
  2. Please be frank and fortright. Self-improvement is important to me. I'll be only too happy to lay any ghosts of the past to rest.

Here are the links to my first RfA in May and the last editor review I had in April-May. If you need any more information, please see the talkpage archives, editcount and contributions chart accessible through my userpage. Thank you, Rama's arrow 15:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Archival: I sincerely thank everybody for their most valuable input. This editor review will be more helpful to me in life outside Wikipedia. I am very grateful so many folks who I've never met before, took some of their time to give me their honest thoughts. Thanks again, Rama's arrow 07:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Sorry, but the reason I generally don't put to much stock in these is you know yourself whether you're working for the best interests of the project at all times and if you're maintaining your cool or not. But since you're looking for feedback, hopefully you'll get some useful ideas. One piece of advice I find works very well is for the most part we can tell when we're about to make an edit that might raise tensions. At that point it's very important to simply walk away for a while until we can think of a better contribution. I'm not always perfectly able to do that of course, but I'm getting better, and the more we can co that, the less arguments we'd have. The other thing is focus more on article writing which you're good at and worry less about the meta issues. In the end the articles are more important. We'll eventually look back and laugh at how seriously we take ourselves here. - Taxman Talk 16:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Your reasoning rings true only that this time I really do want/need serious criticism and advice. You are absolutely correct about where the real focus should be and even more so in taking things easier. Rama's arrow 13:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've a lot of good things to say about you and your editing. But, I think more useful would be some "negative" feedback. You've admitted that you were temperamental initially. I find a lot of improvement on that front. But, it seems to surface on some occasions. For example, though your frustration on Tony's comment based on a mistaken assumption was understandable and even justified, you could've assumed a little more good faith and could've tried to explain him. This is a case of what I call as "information asymmetry" and not any illwill. In such cases, it's desirable that the party who has more information explain the other with patience. Not that this quality is "essential" for an admin, but I feel that this is "highly desirable". Also, there's a couplet in Tirukkural - "இன்னா செய்தாரை ஒறுத்தல் அவர்நாண நன்நயம் செய்து விடல்" - which translates to (roughly) "Let a man conquer by his forbearance; Those who wrong him with arrogance."[1] In my experience, this has worked almost all the time with reasonable people. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Your advice is appreciated and rings very true. Its certainly an ethic I will work with from now on. But I'd just like to add that firmness and candour are also valuable qualities; thus I hope folks won't interpret this exchange with Tony as uncivil. I do understand the need for WP:AGF - I was trying to be candid with Rlevse, but it got out of hand. Rama's arrow 13:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me clarify for the benefit of others who might not know the context that your exchange was no way incivil or improper. I think my Kural quote and the rather "imprecise" translation have taken the thrust away from what I intended to convey about information asymmetry. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This conversation did not go too well. The kind will get linked on a RFA page. I did not read the background. You may have had a good reason to respond like that. But it is best to stay away from them at all time. You have been outstanding with FAs. I can understand the stress that FAs put you through that make you react like this. Our friend, Anwar showed up on my only FL nom and called it "Amateur work". All I did was politely answer back and fixed some good points he raised. A plenty of 'Ps' and 'Qs' will cool your responses down. my 2 cents. - Ganeshk (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I worked with him in some projects and I found him absolutely dedicated and person who really want to solve complicated issues. --Spasage 05:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
From Ambuj
  • As others have said above, you need to work on the time you take to react to situations. Often, as time goes by, we start seeing the situations differently; in a completely different perspective. From my experience, I can tell that in most cases (as much as I have seen), you tried to do the right thing, without giving a gestation period to your actions. Reacting too quickly is often seen as agression, and was the primary reason why your first RfA failed. I too, reacted too quickly to SV's edits, and as a result missed the fact that the FAC in question had already closed. The episode that followed is very well known to you. From what I see, you have the tell-tale signs of becoming a rouge admin, who tries to do the right thing without thinking of the consequences. But my experience tells that many people see it as a negative quality, and this may result in their opposition to your RfA. The trouble is that 100 cases of civility can't be cited to back you, and even if someone finds one hint of incivility against you, it would be used against you. As a completely independent, and equally important issue, I find that you haven't mentioned what kind of admin you are planning to be. Looking at your contributions, I found little janitorial work, and you may need to work on that too. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You know, I had never thought of this like that (This ER is exceeding my wildest dreams!) - I think you may have cured any lingering ailment of temperament I have! To answer your question, I wanted to be discrete and not make this ER a rehearsal for an RfA. However, I will tell you that I want to work on specific areas to eliminate backlogs (especially around the noticeboards) and help out brother admins - I feel comfortable working in any area where there is a need for an extra hand. Previously I have worked on category and stub sorting and intermittently on RC patrol. For the future I want to focus on RC and newpage patrol, cleaning up deadend pages and increase my awareness of the VfD process.
  • You are an exceptional editor and an asset to the encyclopedia. Being chill and keeping your cool are important both here and in the real world -- Samir धर्म 01:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding your contributions to articles, there is not a doubt that you have done a stellar work. However my impression (as reflected in my original question) seems to be corroborated by many others that you need to act more coolly during disputes. My suggestion would be to try to mediate some disputes (through mediation cabal etc.). More often than not, such disputes also turn accusing fingers towards the mediator. See how you handle them. If you are able to handle them with a cool head, I think all apprehensions would be put to rest. Will add more later as something else comes to mind. -- Lost(talk) 03:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nirav, as you and all other people around here know, you're an exceptional contributor to the encyclopedia, on the article front. However, as shown in your last RFA, your so called "incivility" could be a problem. As Ambuj says, try to not react to situations/people which make you angry or frustrated; even ignore them, and don't go near the dispute (as a last resort). Some of the disputes you have pointed out below have turned ugly, and this could be held against you. I hate to point this out, but on the FR/DP/FD FAC, I did get the feeling that you were getting a bit frustrated and angry at Tony. If you are writing out a comment, see how you've phrased yourself; check and re-check whether anything, any comma, exclamation mark is out of place, and could be taken by the most touchy and imaginative editors as incivility. That's the best way to avoid any conflicts. If you do get into a conflict, I'm sure you'll be ultimately able to vindicate yourself, but do try to avoid. Don't take anything to heart. All the best! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 04:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have nothing to add other than what I said on this user's first editor review and then, on his first RfA. All the best to him, --Gurubrahma 13:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Links

  1. Editcount with Essjay's tool


Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    (Previous time's answer) I'm proud of all my work here. I've written 7 featured articles, 26 DYKs and (try to) manage 4 portals: Nanotechnology, Sikhism, U.S. presidency and Himalaya region. I'm also very proud of rendering my services as a copyeditor to help colleagues on a number of FACs and peer reviews. I try to be active in the discussions at WT:RFA, WT:INWNB and previously crafted the Wikipedia:Defense of content policy proposal, which I greatly enjoyed working on.
  2. 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?
    (Previous time's answer) I find myself very sober and grounded since the last RfA. I've had brief tiffs in August with Rlevse ([1], [2], [3], [4], and SlimVirgin ([5], [6], [7], [8]) that weren't exactly incivil but not kosher either - I was basically pissed off by their reversion of my edits, as if they were vandalism. I've been a bit stressed occasionally while defending the article Muhammad Iqbal from POV-pushing, coming close on numerous occasions to breaking WP:3RR. There was an occasion when I found my temper tested on Talk:George W. Bush, when a couple of editors were talking of reverting the revisions I had made (in an effort to make the article an FA). During the last RfA, some editors felt that I was not taking criticism well, and that I was representing some Hindu nationalist-angles, which to me is entirely untrue, but I'm willing to listen to any criticism.

Question from -- Lost(talk)

  • Can you give a recent example of where you were in conflict with another user and you handled it with a cool head? In other words, the conflicts that u handled in a "kosher" way :)?`
  • A: In July, there were some issues with ARYAN818([9],[10]) and Elven6([11]) where things got heated - I tried hard to stay firm without being rude, although ARYAN818 did feel that I was making fun of his name, which I never intended to. Regarding these editors, I filed two reports at WP:ANI. I've dealt with some issues which you can see on Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Talk:Sikhism and Talk:Muhammad Iqbal. I've also attempted to encourage other editors to be civil and keep cool[12],[13]. Rama's arrow 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Question from - Taxman Talk

  • Follow up to the above, can you show a situation where others were in conflict and you were able to de-escalate or calm the situation down? It's not that you have to have been in a situation where you can do this, it's just helpful.
  • A: [14],[15],[16]: these may not exactly fit your particular description, but I have been helpful to others in resolving problems and easing conflicts here. In these cases,[17],[18] I was able to work with Spasage to resolve a sensitive issue, which I feared could lead to edit wars between South Asian editors - I'm especially proud of our discussion and ability to work together. Rama's arrow 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Two Questions from BostonMA:

  • What will you do if there are a series of oppose votes to your nomination?
  • A: I do not covet adminship so I am at peace at the prospect of opposition or the failure of my request. If I can give a cogent response to an opposition argument as I did with Lethe (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Rama's Arrow) then I will consider doing so. But I certainly don't want any such discussion to become a messy debate that tries everybody's nerves. I won't lose my sense of discipline nor do I want anybody else to get into a messy argument.
  • What will you do if spurious arguments are raised against your nomination?
  • A: I have a conflict of interest, so I'll leave it to a bureaucrat (and the community in general) to decide on what is a "spurious" argument. I have certainly no inclination to reply to every opposer - ironically, this is what I was trying desperately to make clear in my last RfA. I realized some time ago that if I had exercised discretion in my previous RfA to begin with, then I would not have come to a point where withdrawal was the only way for my conscience to be at peace. I learnt pretty soon that my temperament was too volatile and unsuited for responsibility. Today I feel more experienced, peaceful and well-grounded.

Question from Kylu:

  • What were the major points of opposition in your last RfA, and what have you done to counter them?
  • A: The main point of opposition on my last RfA was that many editors didn't like my reaction to the oppose lodged by Ardenn. They felt that I couldn't take criticism and that I wasn't respecting the opposers. Individual editors believed that my conduct in Oct-Nov '05 was not satisfactory (I had a conflict with Gurubrahma) and that I was fixated on editcounts. One editor claimed that my username was offensive to non-Hindus. Now the conflict with Gurubrahma had been resolved long ago, and he supported me in the RfA. I have never thought in terms of disrespecting other religions and I'm not obsessed with counting edits at all. As for taking criticism, the only thing I've done to rectify that is to be myself. I was bewildered (and angry) that people had judged me as arrogant, which led me to frantically try to explain otherwise. In December 2005, I took Gurubrahma's criticism to heart and changed my behaviour 180 degrees (see Gurubrahma's comments on my last editor review). After the RfA, I realised after a short while that I should have exercised discretion and temper from the very beginning. More recently I worked with Spasage (mentioned in response to Taxman's question) on a sensitive issue to help prevent conflicts between South Asian editors. I was very temperamental last May but now I feel calm and experienced, so I'm fairly confident about doing an administrator's work with integrity.

Question and Comment

  • There seems to be a lot of comments (not just in our August situation) about civility and temper. In regards to our situation in August, see User_talk:Rlevse#LOOK..., when I said "Let's just give it a rest", see [19], you should have bowed out, rather than pressing the issue and saying "Ruining your evening is the least I can do if it makes you a better person. Also, why even remove my comments at all? You afraid someone will see your stupidity?", see User_talk:Rlevse#LOOK.... Admins simply can not make statements like that. So my question is: What is your plan in the future when you're in a difficult or trying wiki situation? My comment is: That you're addressing this issue and attempting to improve yourself is good and I commend you for it and I consider you a wiki buddy. Rlevse 12:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A: The answer to your question is - to keep a tight lid on my own behaviour at all times. I know that its very difficult to change a person's behaviour, but losing control myself is far more hurtful to me than not responding to someone's insult. At first I argued with you because I felt you were being rude to me on Ladakh's FAC. The reason why I made hot-tempered remarks on your talkpage is that I was offended that you removed my comments. This is exactly what happened with SlimVirgin. I consider it a part of Wikiquette and we can't have a civil dialogue anyway if one does things like that. I know its your talkpage and you're free to do as you please, but there are some things you don't need an explicit policy or guideline for. Take a second look at my latter comment "Ruining your evening..." - in making this statement, I was angry but also "trying" some tough love - even if it upset you, if I could change your thinking it would be worth it. That's all I was trying to say, but obviously I didn't do it the right way - incivility cannot aid the cause of civility.
OK. Thanks for explaining that. None of us are perfect, including myself, and we all know wiki can be very frustrating. However, admins have to be more careful than the rest of us. As for August, I in no way meant to insult you, I was merely disagreeing, and if you felt offended, I apologize for that part. Rlevse 12:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Question from Samir:

Bhadani's views

In fact, I had supported his last RfA. Over the last few months, his work has greatly improved. Alongside his great works, including some really nice FAs, his inter-action with the community members is now very mature. It was like that more or less from the very beginning, but now he has emerged still better editor. In fact, we require such administrators who has depth of domain knowlege in respect of edits done by them; pages created by them, as also a level of maturity to deal with issues requiring administrative actions.. I wish him all the best! --Bhadani 00:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I can say much more than all the others. You are an outstanding editor. Perhaps if I could make one small criticism, it would be the POV-advocay userboxes on your user page. Advocating a POV on your user page in a project devoted to NPOV (whether you edit articles in a POV way or not) does not reflect terribly well on the project. In fact, (if you deal with my one suggestion) I would be pleased to nominate you for adminship myself. :-) Dmcdevit·t 18:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I had to take some time to think about what you said coz I've never sought to promote my POVs - the userboxes to me are self-expression. But I share your concern that userboxes and debates on them don't help build an encyclopedia, which is what I'm here for. And frankly, neither does removing them change anything about me. I certainly don't want to contribute to such distracting factors. Thanks for being frank. Rama's arrow 01:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)