Wikipedia:Editor review/Richardshusr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Richardshusr

This user is currently being considered for adminship. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Richardshusr.

Richardshusr (talk · contribs) I'm within two months of my 1 year anniversary as a Wikipedian and have in excess of 5300 edits with over 600 of them being in Wikipedia space. I plan to submit an RFA around the time that I hit my one year anniversary. Any comments on my strenghts and weaknesses as an editor would be much appreciated. Richard 06:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I have written up a self-assessment of my qualifications (and disqualifications) for adminship. This write-up can be found here. Thanks for taking the time to review my record as an editor. Your comments, suggestions and feedback (both positive and negative) will be welcomed and appreciated. --Richard 06:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Comments


Questions

Q1. Contributions Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

The contributions that I am most proud of are the ones where I helped to resolve an ongoing dispute by serving as an informal mediator, often coming in via the RFC process. I have tried the Mediation Cabal but I think I am best at mediating on topics that interest me rather than just mediating any article where there is a dispute. Here are some examples...


I'm proud of work that I've done on the Aztec,Hernan Cortes,Spanish conquest of Mexico and Siege of Tenochtitlan articles. These articles needed a lot of work in copyediting and reorganization and I joined a group of people who have helped to make a substantial improvement on these articles. I have made a number of WikiFriends through my work on these articles as well.


OK, I confess... for a while, I was a bit of an RFC junkie. What I enjoy most is jumping into a controversial edit war and trying to help find an NPOV resolution. This does not necessarily mean joining one side or the other but rather trying to broker a truly NPOV resolution.

Here are a few examples of my successes in this area...

This was a heated dispute amongst User:Rklawton, User:Meeso and User:Andrew Levine over a fairly small issue. The article had a picture of Delacroix's "Liberty leading the people". The problem is that Delacroix had painted it to memorialize the Revolution of 1830 which was several decades AFTER the French Revolution. One side insisted that it was inappropriately linked to the French Revolution. The other side claimed that, although Delacroix had intended to memorialize the Revolution of ..., the picture had come to be associated with the French Revolution. The difficulty arose in finding sources to support the latter claim. With some research effort via Google, I was able to help find a source and settle the dispute. Here's the diff. I'm proud of this because rather than just pontificating on one side of the debate or the other, I did the research required to actually resolve the dispute.
I think the best example of this has been Expulsion of Germans after World War II. I think this one article is the best example of my work. Once again, I ran across the article when it was posted as an RFC. The article needed help in organization but more importantly in helping to find an NPOV resolution to some conflicts. I think my participation helped push the article closer to being NPOV and I hope I've earned a modicum of respect from the other editors of this article. An understanding of how I think about Wikipedia can be obtained by reading my comments about WP:V,WP:RS and WP:NPOV on Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II.
It is hard to find a single diff that would capture my contributions to this article. The best I can do is to provide a link to the revision of the article immediately before my first edit and a link to the revision of the article after my last set of major edits. I cannot claim credit for all the work done on the article. Most of what I did was re-organizing the article and getting rid of blatant POV-pushing. Even more importantly, I focused the edit-warring and POV-pushing editors of the article on finding an NPOV compromise that met the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. I have stuck around to help improve the article but my contributions now are smaller compared to the big reworking of the article that I did between May 9 and June 7 of 2006.

I ran across the Carthage article on the WP:RFC/History page which I like to watch. Some anon editor (Marduk of Babylon) was insisting that there be no credence given whatsoever of the claim that Carthage practiced child sacrifice. I joined a group of editors (most notably User:Vedexent) in trying to find an NPOV way to suggest that there was evidence to support the claim but that a final determination was impossible. I now count User:Vedexent as a WikiFriend.

I have not created many articles. This was the first article that I created early in my Wikipedia career. I created it based upon a discussion in Talk:Mitigation of global warming that suggested that the "Adaptation to global warming" section be factored out into its own article. The argument made sense to me so I decided to be bold and implement the suggestion which seemed to have consensus (a little bit of support and no objections). The problem is that, within minutes of creating the article, I found that it had been nominated for deletion! I started by arguing my case on the AFD page but when I found that I was making little headway, I decided to work hard to beef up the content beyond what had been in the Mitigation of global warming. I eventually convinced every Delete vote that the new and improved article was worth keeping.
  • Crime in Mexico - I found this article on WP:AFD and recognized that the topic was encyclopedic although the actual content at the time was weak and smacked of a POV depicting Mexico as crime-ridden. I changed the tone of the article to be more NPOV and beefed up the article based on information that I found by doing Google searches. I then contacted each of the Delete votes and got them to change their votes based on the new and improved article.
  • Poverty in India - I found this article on WP:AFD and recognized that the topic was encyclopedic although the actual content at the time was quite weak. In fact, the nomination for AFD was based on a perception that the content had a POV bias against Indians. I beefed up the article based on information that I found by doing Google searches. I was able to convince enough Delete votes to change to Keep so that the AFD was closed as Keep.
  • Kiwi Gaming - My pivotal role in "saving" this article is a bit ironic because I was the one who nominated it for deletion. However, it became obvious that the Kiwi Gaming website was run by a legitimate notable business so I suggested that an article be created on the parent company and the info on Kiwi Gaming be merged into that article. I think my efforts to help save this article give credence to the claim that my interest is more in improving articles than deleting them.

Q2. Dealing with conflict 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?

During my time here so far, I’ve had a few stressful situations and even a few conflicts. I am proud of my conduct in some cases and not 100% proud of my conduct in others. I will say that while I have not always acted in the best fashion, I do not think that I have ever acted in a horrible fashion.
For example, I try to avoid edit wars and can only cite one occasion (Criticism of the Catholic Church) where I have been fully engaged in one. I am embarassed to say that I probably violated WP:3RR on this occasion because, in the heat of the moment, I forgot that even expansions of reverted text counted as part of the limit of 3 reversions. Fortunately, the other editor in the edit war did not charge me with the violation so I escaped being blocked. I realized afterward that I probably had violated WP:3RR and resolved to be more careful about edit-warring in the future. I think I have succeeded in this resolution.

I will admit that I have a tendency to be a bit edgy in the way I write on Talk Pages and that this edginess is occasionally perceived as incivility. No one would ever nominate me as the paragon of civility but I do try to avoid gross incivility.

Moreover, I really earnestly believe in WP:NPOV and try to seek an NPOV stance whenever and wherever possible.

a. Adaptation to global warming was nominated for AfD within minutes of my creating it.
I saved this article from deletion by addressing the criticisms that were raised in the AFD debate. I even convinced the nominator to withdraw his nomination. In doing so, he praised me for not "being a jerk" about having my article nominated for AFD.
b. Poverty in India
I saved this article from deletion by addressing the criticisms that were raised in the AFD debate. I even convinced the nominator to withdraw his nomination. The debate got a little heated at times but I kept my cool.
c. Expulsion of Germans after World War II
For more than 8 months, I have acted as an informal, self-appointed mediator between two highly vocal, highly emotional POV camps. I believe the record of my comments on Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II attests to my ability to stay calm and effectively mediate between strong POV-pushing sides who ignore Wikipedia principles such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
d. Anti-Catholicism
I have just recently been involved in a dispute as to whether a certain section ("Anti-Catholic Humor") belongs in this article. Once again, I have tried to keep my cool despite what seemed to me to be an obstinate refusal to see reason (OK, I guess what I mean is the other party refused to see things my way.)
e. Kiwi Gaming
I think I failed to assume good faith during the AFD discussion but, when challenged on this, I apologized and ultimately helped to save the content from deletion despite the fact that I nominated the article for deletion.

Reviews

Hi Richard. Overall I was very impressed with your contributions to Wikipedia, and I would be willing to nominate you for adminship if you could resolve to improve in a couple of areas. My experience voting for RFA is that candidates tend to succeed much more frequently when someone else is nominating them, as opposed to a self-nomination. I als strongly advise you to cut down your responses in preparation for the RFA (questions 1 and 2 here are the same as 2 and 3 there). One paragraph, maximum two, is all we have patience for. Put together your contributions and such into some kind of resume on your user page.

I looked at your participation in the AFD regarding Adaptation to global warming. Generally, you made good points, and communicated with other users in the spirit of what AFD is all about. Nonetheless, I could only agree with this final assessment: "As an aside, might I suggest to Richard that it is not necessary to provide lengthy rebuttals to every negative comment made here." Dragons flight 09:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC) In other words, you do not need to fight so hard and write such lengthy prose in order to make your point. Keep it short and to the point, and other users are likely to understand more easily and reach a consensus with you.

My other concern is that you have a generally sloppy approach to writing on Wikipedia. The technicalities of the markup are not always intuitive, but you need to learn to indent paragraphs with * or :, and to double-check links before saving the page to make sure you typed in the link correctly. I saw at least one example where you failed to do that. I didn't check whether you write edit summaries, but that's helpful too.

Finally, you may need to convince voters at RFA that you can handle the deletion process, since your involvement there has generally been inclusionist (justifiably so, in my opinion). Also, you will need to demonstrate that other users respect you enough to trust you with mediation decisions on the Admin's noticeboard (from your talk page, it seems okay). YechielMan 04:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be well intentioned and perhaps will develop into a good sysop candidate, but to judge by your participation at WP:CN today I don't think you're ready at this time. The top of the board specifically states that ban discussions are not votes and at a recent talk page thread I pledged not to boldface my opinions, yet you not only set up a discussion in vote format you altered my post so that my signed statement appeared to contradict my pledge. Your reasons against banning display ignorance of precedent. You need more experience, and be aware that I've blocked editors for less than what you did today. DurovaCharge! 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I ought to tone that down a bit. Yes, I've blocked editors for altering others' posts, but you also seem to have done what you did in good faith. Hang out at the administrative boards a bit more and get a feel for how they run. Regards, DurovaCharge! 05:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I can vouch for Richard, I have also been involved at Expulsion of Germans after World War II article and must say he is doing a fine job in what can be best described as an absolutely horrible circumstance. It is a place where petty racists come to vent their frustrations about the world, and being an informal mediator, he has placed himself directly in the firing line and has incurred the wrath of a number of the belligerents who tend to only stop when they are blocked. but through it all he remains a bastion of strength and resolve, I only wish there were more people like him, and I were more like him. Often, just the thought of what Richard would comment has led me to cool down and reword what I was going to post. Richard is like the real world interjecting and saying "hey, there is a real world outside of this wikipedia BS, you know?"

Very fine editor, keep up the great work. I would support your RfA anytime, I have always thought of you as a pseudo-admin anyways, and was originally very surprised when I realized you weren't an admin. and often when I read your comments I would say "why isn't this guy an admin?"

--Jadger 08:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have had the pleasure of working with Richard on articles such as the History of Christianity. He has always been a good contributor, with an interest in improving the content, presentation, and accuracy of material, without an identifiable personal agenda or "chip on one's shoulder", as is oft the case. I believe he would view his status as an administrator as a service in keeping with his overall view of what it means to be an editor and for this reason I would like to add my support to him in this regard. Lostcaesar 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I confess to reservations about the proposal, having seen his contributions to Pauline Christianity. I have written to him about it. Roger Arguile 13:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

After discussion, I withdraw my comment. It is good to have such a well tempered fellow editor. Roger Arguile 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Roger's first comment turned out to have been based on mistaken identity. He thought that I had made edits to Pauline Christianity that were, in fact, made by somebody else. --Richard 16:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"If you continue to act with disrespect towards other editors and the readers of Wikipedia, we may have to resort to just reverting your edits. I would hate to do that. You know that I have supported your efforts to expand the coverage of the Eastern and Russian Orthodox Churches so you know that this message is written in love rather than with antagonistic intent."

I was wanting to clarify why Richard posted the above comment on my talk page. After the comment above I really doubt "the love" you feel. Veiled is veiled and under the veil of "love" a threat is still a threat. Also who is "we"? LoveMonkey 22:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an understandable response to a somewhat loose-cannon editor. For better or for worse, LoveMonkey, you tend to take an antagonistic approach[1][2] when other editors try to work with you. Richardshusr has generally shown himself to be a level-headed, team player. We could use more folks like him with admin privileges. 71.241.66.178 23:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
As is yours Father Damick, that is for a sysop who won't sign on and sign his postings. But show me where I have posted a threat to anyone.
LoveMonkey 00:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this page is a good place for extensive discussions. Every editor is entitled to express his/her opinion and, while I appreciate efforts to defend me, I don't think this is the best place to do so as such discussions could spiral into an extended and heated debate that I don't think is the purpose of this process. Please feel free to continue this discussion on other pages such as my Talk Page.
For other editors reading this review, the quote provided by User:LoveMonkey is taken out of context. This is the full edit from which the quote was taken. I accept that the language that I used may have been a bit harsh. In keeping with my comment immediately above, I will not attempt to defend this edit any further in this section and will leave it to each individual reader to evaluate the edit as written. I will respond to questions on this or any other topic if posted in the "Questions" section above. --Richard 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to User:LoveMonkey's request for clarification here. --Richard 17:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Richard has responded. I can only hope that his comments are sincere. LoveMonkey 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to thank Richard for the masterful job he did in sorting out a policy issue and minor edit war on the biography page of William M. Gray [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray ]. See his level-headed, right on the policy line handling on the Talk page there [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_M._Gray ]. Very smooth and gentle, but insistent on the application of WP while allowing a little slip and slide for consensus. I would like to add for any Admins that might appear here, that BLP pages require strict adherence to WP:BLP and that perhaps there might be added a special dispute resolution page specifically for BLP, as the danger to Wiki as a whole is greater when living persons are libeled by editors who violate WP:BLP. KipHansen 22:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That last bit was such a good idea that I realized it must already be in place. Of course, it was. Thanks, KipHansen 22:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


Richard, you are an industrious editor. Your strong work ethic will serve you well when you become an administrator. I find your editorial judgement generally sound. I have two general observations:

  • On (rare) occasion your posts on talk pages are harsher than they need be. You may try to moderate your tone.
  • Help your fellow editors understand your contributions to raise articles to GA and FA status. I'm unsure what you've done on this front. While it' snot a hard and fast requirement for an admin, I can think of few better ways to improve one's editing skills than leading one or more GA and FA upgrades.

I look forward to your contributions. Majoreditor 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Per request I will see if I can cite an example. Majoreditor 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This user unfortunately takes side with Polish nationalistic POV pushers that are severely damaging Wikipedia, and engages in edits wars and vandalism on, among others, the Erika Steinbach article. He restores edits of User:Space Cadet, who has been banned no less than 7 times for his edit-warring/vandalism (his only Wikipedia activity)[3] . He falsely claims that the 2 million member BdV organisation is "controversial" (a profanity, organisations for Holocaust survivors are not described as "controversial" in Wikipedia). He vandalizes the article by removing the fact that she is member of the television council of the ZDF, and falsely claims she is a member of the board. He also add nationalistic vandalism and outright lies, like her birthplace was in the Gen Gov of Poland when it was not. This user is completely unsuited to become an admin. We do not need more Polish nationalists and edit-warriors as admins, on the contrary. Basedview22 16:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an article which is charged with emotion and POV-pushing. I do my best to help maintain an NPOV stance and I take exception to being characterized as a "Polish nationalist" (especially since I am not Polish) or an "edit-warrior" when, in fact, I have not been involved in the major edit wars over this article and have made a point to try to defuse such edit wars.
I have been looking for the edits of User:Space Cadet that User:Basedview22 says that I restored. A quick review of Space Cadet's contributions did not turn up any obvious candidates. I could provide a better response to the criticism if diffs of specific edits were provided.
In my defense, I will comment that User:Jadger made positive comments above about my conduct on the same set of articles and User:Jadger is a pro-German, anti-Polish nationalist. If I were, as User:Baseview22 charges, a "Polish nationalist", there is no way that I would get even a neutral, let alone positive, review from User:Jadger.
--Richard 06:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You removed a question/concern from the Village Pump without asking if it was okay, if it wouldn't be breaking a rule, or asking the poster on his/her talk page to remove it first. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#EARTH_needs_large_changes.21.21.21.21 Is the the post. That goes against Ettiquette (deleting other people's posts without just cause) and is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Such a person of this should be repremanded and/or not allowed administrative powers over others, because of potential abuse. SanchiTachi 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Touché. This is the edit in question. When I removed it, it was because it looked like a POV rant that had nothing to do with policy. Upon closer inspection, there is a request for help in the form of a proposal and a response which rejects the proposal and cites policy as the grounds for rejecting the proposal. On further reflection, I now see that there was sort of a vague link to a policy issue that I might have seen if I had read the discussion more carefully. I could have been a little slower on the trigger finger and let the discussion continue a bit longer. Or, I could have taken the time to explain to the user why the discussion was inappropriate for Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). The real issue seems to be that this was more of a debate about article content and structure than about Wikipedia policy and so the discussion belonged on Talk:Earth not Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
In my defense, I will note that, without any prompting on my part, two other users (User:Someguy0830 and User:Amarkov reverted User:SanchiTachi, basically agreeing with my initial assessment.
--Richard 06:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I could not support an RfA in the next couple of months. Admins need a good understanding of article development as a basic prerequisite for the role. Fire safety education should never have been created in this form; failing WP:MOS and several policies and its launch was an indication of a failure to understand our policies. Even a stub should be worked up in the sandbox and sourced, catalogued and stubbed before creation. TerriersFan 19:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I can't disagree that articles should meet the high standards that User:TerriersFan puts forth. The fact of the matter, however, is that many articles get created in Wikipedia without meeting those high standards and the incremental and collaborative nature of Wikipedia improves them one way or another (a redirect, CSD or AFD can be considered an improvement in this context).
What was probably not clear to User:TerriersFan is that I had created the article Fire safety education as a suggested place to merge the content of Student Awareness of Fire Education which had been [nominated for AFD]. In retrospect, I should have left a note to that effect on the Talk Page of the article. It might not have changed anything but, at least, it would have explained to everybody else what I was doing and why.
--Richard 06:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)