Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hildanknight

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

[edit] Statement by Hildanknight

This is a Requests for Comment on myself, modelled after Kelly Martin's. As this is my first time filing an RFC, and because of its unusual nature, please don't bite me for any mistakes I make in filing this RFC.

I am filing this RFC on myself to request my contributions and conduct be reviewed by the community. Although I believe I have the potential to become a prolific article writer, I have gotten into various controversies. Hopefully the advice I receive here will help me utilise my potential, while avoiding further controversies.

[edit] My introduction

As my user page says: "I'm Hildanknight, a.k.a. J.L.W.S. The Special One, a 15-year-old Singaporean Chinese boy. My friends consider me intelligent, humorous and ecccentric. My passions are computers, chess and writing. I'm also a huge fan of Jack Neo movies and Chelsea F.C."

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I'm among the best writers in my school. Compositions I write regularly feature in school publications and represent my school in national competitions. Although I have not won a prize at a national competition (yet), one of my compositions has featured in a national compilation, and I have been interviewed by several magazines (I won't name them, to protect my privacy).

However, the writing assignments I did in school bored me. I wanted to write something different, something that would have a greater impact. Hence, in early 2006, I was looking for an online writing community. Wikipedia seemed the perfect choice: a project to create a free encyclopedia was something I'd never done before; articles I contributed to a website millions read daily would be likely to have some impact; a unique community where I could meet and befriend other writers with similar interests.

I joined Wikipedia in February 2006, and since then, I have accumulated over 2,000 edits.

[edit] My contributions

I have written five articles: Google Groups, Homerun (film), Money No Enough, I Not Stupid and AdventureQuest. Money No Enough was one of the Did You Know? articles for 27 December 2006, a day after I Not Stupid's GA nomination failed.

When not writing articles, I regularly participate in discussions, mostly on the village pump, SGpedians' notice board and the talk page of Esperanza (I joined Esperanza in October 2006, and remained an Esperanzan until the organisation was deleted). I also founded Requests for feedback, a process for (usually new) users to seek feedback on articles they have written, which is finally starting to take off.

In addition, I revert vandalism to articles on my watchlist, and since October 2006, have always warned the vandals with appropriate templates. When I spot repeated or severe vandalism, I will file a report at AIV or RFP.

Why I believe I can be an asset to Wikipedia:

• Most administrators and established contributors focus on minor edits, maintenance tasks and people politics. In contrast, information is usually added by newcomers, who are unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. For more information, you may be interested in a blog post by Aaron Swartz entitled Who Writes Wikipedia? Wikipedia needs more established contributors who write articles and are familiar with policy and process. This will result in articles being of higher quality, and ensure that the opinions of article writers are well-represented in discussions and processes. I am a contributor who can reverse this trend - although I focus on writing articles, I don't mind participating in discussions, fighting vandalism and clearing backlogs.
• I believe in being meticulous and thorough. Since my first edit, I have used detailed edit summaries, although this has attracted some criticism. Before saving an edit, I will preview and check it for language and formatting issues. Moreover, when participating in discussions, I always endeavour to include relevant wikilinks in my posts.
• Being a Singaporean, my contributions to articles on Singaporean topics help fight systemic bias. In my progress report issued by my school at the end of 2006, one of the comments was that I am "good at...politely providing alternative views". Therefore, I could help fight groupthink, another form of systemic bias.
• A frequent participant in discussions on VPR, I have developed and posted some of my own ideas, which have been met with varying levels of success. My most successful idea has to be Requests for feedback, which is finally starting to take off.

[edit] My controversies

During my first few months as a Wikipedian, when the blocking policy proposal had not yet been implemented, I was regularly blocked as collateral damage, because my IP address is shared by 300,000 Singaporeans. This frustrated me considerably, and I raised this issue at various locations, but to no avail. On 3 June 2006, I blew up, and made personal attacks. NSLE blocked me indefinitely (later reduced to 24 hours), but within half an hour, Khaosworks unblocked me, due to - ironically - collateral damage.[1]

On 5 July 2006, I decided to leave Wikipedia, but subsequently changed my mind after Richardshusr encouraged me to stay. In August, I was considerably stressed by a couple of edit wars involving anonymous users. I continued contributing under my main account, but started vandalising anonymously (some admins may remember me as the “Microsoft vandalbot”). After I was caught by CheckUser and blocked for a week by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh, I resolved to turn over a new leaf. It took me some time, but I successfully overcame my vandalism addiction.

Everything went well until 26 December 2006, when I Not Stupid's GA nomination failed, and Dev920 nominated Esperanza for deletion. I had a little fight with Dev920, which started when I opposed her RFA. After the RFA failed, I left a comment on her talkpage, which I admit was slightly incivil. She responded by removing the comment with an even more incivil edit summary, accusing me of "spewing bile".

Furthermore, my strongest pursuit - writing articles - has been hindered by:

• The verifiability policy. Due to systemic bias, there is a lack of available references on Singaporean topics. At times, I have compromised the quality of my prose to ensure it meets verifiability requirements.
• Anonymous vandals. Reverting them drains me of the energy I need to write. Unfortunately, I can't avoid them - they're rampant, and if they attack an article I'm working on, edit conflicts result. Before the implementation of the blocking policy proposal, many edits I saved were lost because I was blocked as collateral damage (this is no longer an issue). Therefore, I strongly oppose anonymous editing.

[edit] Advice needed

I would appreciate:

• General comments on my contributions and conduct.
• Advice on how to handle conflicts better, and not let the verifiability policy affect my ability to write.
• Advice on which areas of Wikipedia to focus on, and which areas to avoid.
• Perhaps Wikipedia may not be the right writing community for me. Do you think so? Please explain your answer, and if you think Wikipedia's not suitable for me, please recommend a better writing community. If the consensus is that I'm not compatible with Wikipedia, once I find a better writing community, I will leave Wikipedia of my own accord, in the best interests of both myself and Wikipedia.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grievance number 1

This is a summary of a grievance written by users who are aggrieved at the conduct of the subject of this Request for Comments. A user may write or endorse as many grievance sections as he or she desires.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

• I wouldn't call this a grievance, per se, but you have been rather uncivil in your remarks on Dev's talk page. I think you would benefit from a review of Wikipedia's policies (who wouldn't?). I notice, too, you were blocked last year for violating WP:POINT. My honest opinion is that you're still quite young, and haven't learned yet to temper your remarks. Wisdom comes with age, and I think you'll get there. I also commend you for opening yourself to comment from the community, and hope you'll take their message to you on board. Jeffpw 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't think of this as a grievance at all, Hildanknight. I understand you were blocked last year for vandalism with sockpuppets, but I won't think of what you did as "extremely controversial". No, not at all. Perhaps an editor review?--Tdxiang 10:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this grievance:

[edit] Subject's response to grievance number 1

[edit] Grievance number 2

This is a summary of a grievance written by users who are aggrieved at the conduct of the subject of this Request for Comments. A user may write or endorse as many grievance sections as he or she desires.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this grievance:

[edit] Subject's response to grievance number 2

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

With all due respect for your intentions, Hildanknight, this isn't appropriate for RfC. Why don't you take this over to Wikipedia:Editor review? A Train ^{take the} 19:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think an editor review would be more appropriate if I had not gotten into so much controversy. Since Kelly Martin once filed an RFC on herself regarding her own controversial conduct, I felt filing an RFC on my own controversial conduct would be more appropriate. As previously stated, this RFC is modelled after Kelly Martin's. Of course, if there is a consensus that Editor Review would be more appropriate, I will file an editor review instead. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Martin was being a drama queen when she filed the RFC on herself. If she had only read the criticisms of herself that had already been posted on various Talk Pages and taken them to heart, she wouldn't have needed to file an RFC on herself. And she didn't need to decide to give up her various privileges and leave the English Wikipedia either. Drama, drama and more drama. With the affection and compassion that you know I have for you, I say that the same goes for you. You don't need an RFC. You need to "take a pill and chill". This is just Wikipedia. At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of magnetic orientations of atoms on a bunch of disks connected to a bunch of computers in Florida. It really matters not a whit and, if you are getting all twisted up inside about the way people are treating you, then you need to read Desiderata and absorb its message into your soul. Next, you need to walk (no, run) away from the keyboard and go enjoy life. Only when you have found peace and harmony out there, should you venture back to Wikipedia because, otherwise, it is doing you more harm than good.

--Richard 07:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I may not respond to comments promptly, since I am currently on wikibreak until 10 February. Please don't let this discourage you from making comments - I will respond to them when I'm back. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)