Wikipedia:Editor review/TheronJ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] TheronJ

TheronJ (talk · contribs) I'm curious what people think. TheronJ 23:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I'm not really sure what to say here. You're doing fine. You've created a lot of new content, you fight vandalism, and you have a broad perspective about the project. With your edits to Wikipedia namespace pages, you might be considered a m:metapedian.

I would advise you to focus on jobs that you're good at and that other people aren't doing. For example, when I'm bored I sometimes do New Pages patrol (or occasionally RC Patrol), but really it's not necessary because so many others are doing it anyway. However, for Editor Review and WP:DEAD, there are pages just sitting there for weeks waiting for attention, and my contribution there is more valuable. So I would say the same to you. Your work as a mediator is extremely valuable. Wikipedia has a shortage of mediators, and people like me are reluctant to do it for a number of reasons. Your work as an article writer is also valuable because you work more diligently on style and referencing than most other editors. If you prioritize areas where you are most "needed" (of course we don't really need anyone, but that's another discussion), you will maximize your contribution to Wikipedia.

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 17:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Introduction: Generally, I think my contributions are characterized by two factors. First, I am a big fan of Wikipedia, but can't resist going to the next plate on the buffet, so I tend to do a little bit of a lot of things. Second, I generally like projects that I can pick up and finish, so I (unfortunately) don't have any featured articles to my name. With that said
    Articles: I think I'm best as a sourcing gnome, and try to add info where I can. (Cleaning up uncategorized pages is a great way to find these). Examples include: Sarah McClendon (diff); Survivor (Octavia Butler novel) (started and primarily written by me so far); Séraphine Louis (diff); and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (these three diffs).
    AFD: I like when I can contribute something new to AFD, either when I'm the first person to suggest a rationale that ends up carrying the day, or when I can make enough edits to correct the problem. For example, in response to an AFD nomination for St. Clements University, I tracked down and added some references that improved the article and caused the nominator to withdraw the nomination. (Here and here). I added similar references in response to the House of Dolls AFD, (diff), although that one was a lot easier.
    Wikipedia space: My policy and Wikipedia points of pride are somewhat trivial, but I like them. I'm proud of this edit to WP:SPADE, mostly because I like the idea of collaboratively editing essays to reach some consensus. I like these edits to WP:!VOTE, for the same reason, and because I think that the discussion led to a good finished product.
    Dispute resolution: I enjoy trying to assist in dispute resolution, and have done a bunch of advocacies and informal mediations. I'm probably proud of somewhat more than half of them.
  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?
    I'm a member of the harmonious editing club and try to stick by its principles. Generally, I'm a strong believer that: (1) it doesn't cost much to be polite even to people you think are jerks, and often helps; (2) even today's jerks could be tomorrow's good editors, and should be given the chance; and (3) most problems can be resolved without calling someone a jerk (although sometimes the resolution is banning the jerk, calling him or her one doesn't normally help). Once in a while, especially in policy debates, I realize that I have become outraged that the other side just doesn't get how obviously right I am. When I notice that I have allowed Wikipedia to actually make me mad, I try my best to pack up my tiger and take a Wikibreak.
    Good examples: (1) I had been strongly opposed to WP:!VOTE, and spent a while arguing on the talk page. As mentioned above, I ended up taking up the main proponent's invitation to suggest revisions, and tried to write something that captured both the proponents' viewpoint (polling is often useless and sometimes affirmatively harmful, especially in policy debates) with mine (polling is used from time to time, especially in articles debates, and is sometimes helpful). The two ideas overlapped, and I think the guideline is better for having both. (2) Similarly, when a new change patroller prodded a stub of mine for deletion[1], I talked to him about it, edited the article to attempt to address his concerns, (diff), and then discussed those edits with the prodd-er.(diff).
    Less good example: I'm still a little ashamed of one conflict. Shortly before the 2006 US Congressional elections, I noticed that an anonymous editor had deleted almost all negative information about one candidate, Clint Curtis,[2] and inserted unsourced negative information regarding Curtis' opponent, Tom Feeney.[3]. I gave the anon a couple vandalism warnings with the standard templates, (see User talk:131.94.55.64) and ultimately reported him for vandalism. (Here). Sam Blanning responded the way I probably should have, suggesting ways the anon could present his opinion, and suggesting that the anon use edit summaries to explain why he was deleting sections of text.[4] At that point, I tried to engage the anon on the talk page, and IMHO, we actually identified some good improvements by explaining our opinions and evaluating sources.[5]. Unfortunately, although I thought we made good progress, the anon eventually decompensated, registering for an account and going on an anti-TheronJ rampage. See Special:Contributions/Rememberkigali. (After the election, of course, he lost interest). His complaints were rejected, but I have always wondered - if I had been a little nicer about those first couple warnings, could we have reached some equilibrium? Probably not, but I'll never know. In any event, my lesson from that one is that except in cases of obvious vandalism, I plan to add at least a little sugarcoating to my warnings, especially if I'm involved in a content dispute with the vandal.
  3. What do you think about Larry Sanger, his role in the history of Wikipedia, and Jimbo's position with respect to LS's claims concerning Wikipedia? The Transhumanist   21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    You ask great questions, Transhumanist. I hadn't really thought about Sanger before, although I am interested in the expert editor critique of Wikipedia. Let me think about it a little bit and get back to you. TheronJ 21:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, TheronJ 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)