Wikipedia:Editor review/WCityMike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:WCityMike

WCityMike (talk · contribs) I am creating this in parallel with my request for adminship, to allow commenters (and also those not participating in the RfA, to offer any advice they would seek to provide as to ways in which I can grow and/or branch out as a Wikipedian. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sample Questions:

In light of RadioKirk's comment below (the one about "unless you ask something specific"), I thought that it might help for a few sample questions to be here to pick and choose from, although please feel free to ignore them and/or be freeform in your commentary:

  1. What one or two things do you feel I could correct to improve my contributions to Wikipedia articles?
    Using my regex analyzer, and checking how it marked you edits (it was reasonable), you have made a few large contributions and a lot of tagging/really minor stuff to article. Consider either a)stub creation or better, in my opinion, b)article expansion, perhaps even good tidbits of information.Voice-of-AllTalk 18:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. What one or two things do you feel I could correct to improve my dealings with fellow Wikipedians?
    Perhaps a little more patience—generally, you're a good communicator, but learn to "count to ten" :) RadioKirk talk to me 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    I also feel that this is a valuable thing to do. ~MDD4696 03:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Do you have any specific suggestions as to specifically where in Wikipedia I might best "put my shoulder to the grindstone"?
    Study policy, specifically WP:V and WP:NOR as noted in your Rfa. RadioKirk talk to me 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Are there any article-driven organizations, WikiProjects, cabals, or groupings that you know of where you feel I might be able to make a worthwhile difference?
  5. Are there any non-article-driven organizations, WikiProjects, cabals, or groupings where you feel I might be able to make a worthwhile difference?
  6. Greatest strength?
    Generally a good communicator. RadioKirk talk to me 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Greatest weakness?
    Impatience, perhaps? RadioKirk talk to me 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Can I count on your vote when I run for President of the United States in 2008?
    Ooops. That one wasn't supposed to go in.

Reviews

  • Spams userpages to invite them to the Editor review. Yikes! Kim Bruning 21:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Could be more accurately rephrased as "alerts people who voted in his request for adminship that if they would like to comment further, they can do so at his editor review." — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that comment did seem overly-harsh and perhaps not too accurate. When I think of spam, it is either a)vote stacking or b)meaningless/unwanted nonsense. I definetely didn't feel that way at least.Voice-of-AllTalk 18:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You asked me to comment here after your RfA. What I said there was:
"The answer to question four shows that the candidate either doesn't understand policy, or plans to work against it."
In your answer to Q4 you'd said:
"I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding verification. However, I have also gained an empirical sense that, institutionally, Wikipedia strongly admires and respects the viewpoints of experts" ... "although this is admittedly not policy" ... "and thus thought that factual information directly conveyed from an expert in the field would be appropriate, even if the knowledge conveyed from said expert was unpublished.
That showed me that you either hadn't read, or didn't understand WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:NOT or WP:CITE. That was the big thing for me. The way I've worked on learning the policies is to make a point of referring to them when I'm using talk pages - as indeed I have right here. It's a good tactic for being sure that you've understood the policy when you quote it, and you pick bits up as you go along.
I also referred to your ArbCom case which, as other people had commented, was far too recent. I, and from what I can tell, most people, will happily believe that you learned from the experience, especially given your withdrawal statement - you just need to get a big bunch of civil good-faith editing and a few months between you and it.
My main suggestion, really, is that you keep editing, get involved in some wikiprojects, and read lots of WP:POL. Don't be in too much of a hurry to be an admin - you can be a useful and valued wikipedian without being a sysop. Good luck. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Answer I'm exceptionally proud of my work on the bedbug article, because I was able to do a good deal of good on there, including a major rewrite which started with this diff. It's not a traditional source of information on Wikipedia, but it's still valid: an interview, namely with the exterminator who treated my apartment last year, who had ten years' worth of experience exterminating the little buggers. As a result, I've seen that article cited to in quite a few places across the Web. There have been other instances where I've taken something that was a mess of information and yielded a fairly good, categorized, clearer end result — and felt an accompanying sense of pride — but I must admit, I didn't bother to write down their names at the time. ;-) I lately have found that hitting 'Random article,' looking to see if it needs cleanup, and then going onwards can be an interesting way to learn things and do cleanup — tagged or no — at the same time.
  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?
    Answer There have been two major incidents I can recall in the past, and I think I've learned from both. Both are archived at my talk page (and the fact that I've not blanked them will, I hope, be considered in a positive light), but I'll briefly review here. The most notable was a very bullheaded decision to bring an ArbCom case over perceived incivility from a group of admins. But this taught me a good lesson about Wikipedia: I had a good decision with a kind-hearted Esparanza admin on IRC, and realized exactly how mistaken my decision had been. I apologized to same the admins I had brought into the ArbCom case [1] and withdrew the case. I learned from this a better sense of perspective and a healthy respect for the cooldown process, but I also hope this demonstrates a strength I feel I've always had: a willingness to learn and to re-evaluate myself as necessary, and to put aside my ego when I really do goof up. Although I don't wish to fully speak about it in the Wikipedia community, there was something going on in my personal life that influenced my temper at the same time, and I neglected to take that into account that night. The other situation was a disagreement with a user in which I felt he was being rather abusive with the process, and it blew up rather quickly. I'm not sure I really have an explanatory statement about same, as I do feel that there were mistakes on his part as well as mistakes on my part.