Wikipedia:Editor review/Synergy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Synergy[edit]

Synergy (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) I've been an editor, for the most part since 2006. I'm interested in hearing the opinions of my fellow wikipedians with respect to my contributions. Any thoughts will be respected and appreciated. Thanks. — MaggotSyn 18:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I do a lot of behind the scenes work with maintenance (stub sorting, fixing minor errors in AfD's, closing AfD's, closing RfA's, closing MfD's, filing MfD's, etc.) and I find that these are my most valued contributions. Why? Because I like to think that a number of things that I do here, make the process of editing articles run smoother. I do not have many article contributions, because I do not feel I am that great of a writer, but I have an activities page to display what I would take credit for.
  3. 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've been in multiple conflicts in my time on wikipedia. Summarizing all of it would be next to impossible. You cannot edit wikipedia and not get into what editors would call a dispute, no matter how trivial you might think that dispute may be. Off hand, and to the best of my knowledge, I would have to say that I've been in disputes with BDJ, Keeper76, El_C, Collectonian, King Vegita, and others that I might have forgotten at the time of typing this up, but I am not purposely trying to conceal any disputes. I am rarely if ever stressed while in a dispute. This is something that I credit one admin for (Aaron Bren). He walked me through a dispute once, and took it so slow that it relaxed me to the point where I was able to objectively discuss the situation and have a fruitful conversation. I might not always abide by it, but I do retain it. I'd be more than happy to discuss anything pulled from my history in relation to past disputes.
  4. Why did you take such a long break? Looking at your edits it looks like sour grapes over your first RfA?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Family mostly. I had to move from one state to the other three times, and for a long period of time I had no computer or internet connection (pretty much the majority of 2007). But surely, if I was sour over a bad RfA, I would have also quite after this last one.

Reviews

Hey there. This is my first shot at an ER, so be patient with me!

From what I've seen you've done some great work in the Wikipedia mainspace. I like a user who's signature I've seen across all of Wikipedia's "forums", and you certainly meet that criteria. Your interaction with fellow Wikipedians seems good, notwithstanding some of the disputes. I'm a bit lazy to provide diffs, but you've seemed to resolve most conflicts soundly. Could you expand a bit more on your rationale in dealing with conflict?

If I could suggest one thing, it would be some article building contributions. Your proficiency in English seems fine to me :P. Take the plunge! You'll find article building/expanding/cleanup/whatever infinitely rewarding.

Cheers,

Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 01:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you wanna play the game, I'd recommend dropping the Essjay quote. He was before my time and certainly had a lot of supporters, though folks were also unhappy with other aspects of the whole issue. You wanna avoid controversy. I would also write content - the more DYKs, GAs, FAs you have the better. All involve some aspect of review and negotiation. The mere presence of one or more allows a lazy slob like me to figure out in about 5 seconds that an editor has been in situations where some degree of negotiation is involved and navigated it successfully. These two points may convert some neutrals or abstainers into supports. Just my 2c anyway. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: I see your two top contribution articles are both B-class. Given there are bones of contention in both, getting either or both to GA will be a major coup and would be worth a stack of kudos points if you can broker an agreement between all possible influences. There amy be a shorter more mundane article to pique your interest which involves less fighting, say one which is older. I dunno, Malleus maleficarum or something. etc. Occult is something I know a little about but have not ever edited on wiki. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the drive-by, single-issue review, but I have seen perhaps a dozen instances of you closing Xfd's as WP:SNOW or speedy keep which were objected to, creating needless strife. I think closing early is only useful when it is simply to avoid continuing a discussion with uncontroversial keep !votes, not when it antagonizes nominators or deletionists. I think your editing would be improved if you refrained from closing Xfd's within 24 hours of their opening (except for WP:POINT or procedurally ignorant noms), and refrain from SNOW closing discussions which have several policy-based delete arguments. Regards, Skomorokh 03:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all Skomorokh, in fact I'm happy to see you've shown up. Since my last RfA, I have only closed one XfD in the similar fashion in which you begin to address. But for the claim that there are policy based arguments that I have closed without acknowledging, I'd rather examples are provided. Other than that, all of my closures since then have been either with a clear application of NAC or SK. — MaggotSyn 03:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference this MfD closed early on June 20th was my last contested early close. Since then, I've closed many XfD's, none of which are contested. — MaggotSyn 03:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying your closures were not by the book, but that is not the sole criterion by which we a useful editor review should be authored; just because a particular action is sanctioned by policy or guideline does not make it a good idea. I think it is safe to say that a non-trivial number of your closures have rubbed people the wrong way in the past, and that this is largely avoidable in future. If you don't like the wording above, how about "refrain from closing XfD's which were nominated in good faith by informed editors within 24 hours". You recently closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center as SNOW after 3 hours with 3 votes, when it ended up being deleted after your decision was overturned. Regards, Skomorokh 04:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For factual accuracy only: That was 4 Keep votes, and I also !voted to delete since the creator opined to delete after further conversation. But as I said, with this one exception from almost a month ago, it will no longer be an issue. Regards. — MaggotSyn 04:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear it. On an unrelated matter, you seem to edit at all hours of the day or night (except on weekends), which might be a cause of stress or physical strain, but that's just speculation. Good luck with the review, Skomorokh 04:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You closed another xfD this morning as WP:SNOW after only an hour, and 4 keep !votes. I have to question the excess enthusiasm that you display for closing xfDs early. There really is no rush, and you have a tendency to rush. Mayalld (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a review. You should keep conversation to one place, as its on ani. There you will find no one agrees with your assertion. — MaggotSyn 11:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that you seem to feel that a battle on this point is the way to go. On ANI, you felt it should be discussed here, here you think it should be discussed on ANI, where "nobody agrees with me" (I read it differently), but it seems that there isn't much point to this conversation, as you are more intent on trying to prove that you've "won" (whatever that may mean) than you are in taking on board comments that reflect changes to your style that may help. Mayalld (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please try not to obfuscate the situation. I suggested on ani that you check out my review, and suggested here that you review me, as that is what this page is for. I never said I "won" anything as I wasn't aware that this was a "battle". However, I did invite you to my talk page twice, in an effort to resolve this matter away from ani, as ani is for admin intervention, and not dispute resolution. You are still more than welcome to my talk page, and more than welcome to review my contributions. As for the issue on ani, the sockpuppet is now blocked, and I am considering the matter settled. If I am wrong, please address it on my talk. Thank you. — MaggotSyn 12:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review from Balloonman

First, while I know that your three top articles are controversial, it is a little weird looking at somebody who has 2X the edits on the talk page than the articles themselves. And while you have a lot of edits in the mainspace, there are only a few with over 50 edits. Upon surface review you appear to be active in a number of adminly areas. The thing that makes your edit history difficult to review is the fact that you had such a long "vacation" between periods of activity. It's also hard to evaluate because I'm not sure if I'm looking at a person who has 9K edits or 3K edits. As an editor with 9K edits, your contributions to certain area is low... as a 3K editor they are just fine. I feel like I should simply discard the earlier stuff as it was over a year ago and I generally don't look at anything that old. In all honesty, it would have been easier to review you if you had created a new account when you came back a few months ago and simply referenced the old account... but that being said, I would definitely not recommend that now. The early sense that I get, without digging down more, is that your earlier usage was almost exclusively for vandal fighting?

You appear to have http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/SynergeticMaggot&action=edit&section=1a history of closing things early in AFD... pay very close attention to that. You may have worked on this area, but you've been tagged with a label. It is harder to shake a label than it is to develop a solid reputation to begin with. (The same thing I told Bean about incivility goes for you with XfD's.)

Sie sprechen Deutsch? Haben Sie in Deutschland gewohnt?

I really don't like the way you've formatted your Talk Page Archive... traditional is better... I am glad that you've started to respond to comments on your talk page. It is really annoying having to go insearch of the answer on somebody else's page. Speaking of which, I'm having trouble deciphering the relationship here.

I don't tell my coachees to work on RFA or the RFA Talkpages... and there is a reason... I think it actually works against you if you are interested in running for an RFA. Your discussion with Enigma and VS related to Rollback is of concern. I agree with VS that this edit didn't show a proper understanding of rollback and that you could have allieviated the tension by simply stating, 'Sorry about that, it was a mistake.' But overall, I agree that VS probably over reacted.

I like the fact that some people come to you as an admin... that is always a good sign. IMHO the most important attribute on wikipedia is to be perceived as an admin. I'd rather be perceived as one, than actually be one! Being an admin is a state of mind, not the granting of a few buttons. If you act like an admin, then you are one, regardless of what the community says.

I really didn't like your interaction with JBMURRAY related to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center. While I'm not pleased with everything he said, I think you erred in closing it (as was demonstrated by the ultimate outcome.) I also think you messed up with your communications with him... Finally, I think your avid support of the award center will play against you down the road. A lot of RfA regulars see the award center as a bad thing... focus more on quantity rather than quality. I'll try to come back later for more, but this is just a start...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Response to reviews

  • On Essjay's quote:
I've taken this into account, believe me. Yet, its transcluded onto my userpage is to promote its message, not the user. If more editors followed this very simple precept, then we would have a far better environment in which to work.
I agree with you on the quote in that I also like what it says. I guess I am thinking politics, in that if it boiled down to it, would you prefer to increase your chances of an FAC RfA passing, or keeping the quote, which would you prefer. I suspect that if you take 100 passers-by you may find one person taking exception to it - I do concede I might be completely wrong on this however :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just don't see the relationship between a quote, and FAC. I have no real aspiration to promote an article to feature status, I'll let others do this. The rush to GA or FA for adminship, in my eyes, is pretty vein. We threw FA as a requirement out of RfA a long time ago. The truth, is that I have worked on article content before, but displaying absolutely every article I've worked on is not something I'm inclined to do. Thank you for the review though. — MaggotSyn 03:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, that seems to be a statement on corruption in FAC. Users should not be considered when determining if an article meets the FA criteria. It's either up to standards or it's not. If having a quote from Essjay on one's userpage prevents a top quality article from achieving Featured status, that speaks volumes about the FAC process. LaraLove|Talk 04:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! I meant RfA not FAC. I had to re-read what I wrote a couple of times before I figured what you were on about. My bad. Sorry, no I think havnign an Essjay quote on your page would have zero effect on FAC whatsoever.
Back to content writing, I am not saying totally dive hell-fo-leather into content. The aim of an rfA is to show that you are a net positive to the project. If there are other issues, say civility or dispute history, then it is prudent to have something else positive to show for it and hopefully drive some neutrals into supports. I for one think that article writing history is very helpful for earning respect of some users (see Avruch's recent RfA for one), and is also good for minimising factions, though that may be complete optimistic fantasy on my part :P Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, it was a simple mistake. For the time being, I believe I can show through my contributions that I am a net positive already (that is under the assumption that I even plan a future RfA, which I have not yet done). In the mean time, I have a number of article creations I will be working on (and adding them to my mantle), one of which I had undeleted and put into my sandbox. I'll possibly reconsider taking a few to GA status, but thats as far as I'm willing to go. — MaggotSyn 12:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting stubs. I think GA is definitely a reasonable target for several of them - they are pretty obscure...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Balloonman
I don't think that its particularly weird that I have more edits to the talk pages (on Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Aleister Crowley and Ordo Templi Orientis) than to the articles themselves. Consensus takes time and patience, and as you have noted, these articles tend to be semi-controversial. The number of edits also, aren't an issue to me, and I'll explain. The issue to me, is whether or not those 50 or so edits improved the article. Most of the edits I've made to these articles have been major improvements. When I add content, I usually add in blocks of text and use the preview button to limit the amount of mistakes I make. This is to avoid edit count inflation by the means of one edit per sentence, and 5 edits to correct spelling, wikification and punctuation, etc. My aim has alway been quality over quantity. 2006 was when I was more active in content writing, vandal fighting I've always done.
My interaction with King Vegita: I've already made you aware of that situation from my talk page, where Keeper popped over with the link. The diff you show, is him wording that userbox to reflect what used to be a Dragon Ball Z userbox created by him. On one side is Goku (that would be me) and on the other is Vegeta (notice his username is one letter off). Most editors can't tell, since the images were deleted, but this was a comical representation of the classic feud between these two characters on.... I'm straying away from the topic now... My talk page? Now you're just being picky. ^_^
Onto my rollback. I actually did apologize for the mistake, twice if I recall correctly. But it wasn't for what you are thinking. I was editing while tired and didn't correctly formulate my sentence accurately, and VS didn't believe me at the time. The initial conversation began, when I failed to notice that an article was semi-protected. I had removed the tag, thinking that I had hit the undue button (this was a new change for me upon returning to the wiki after my break, the difference between rollback and undo) instead of reverting, and I believe leaving an edit summary with page not protected (as I said, I was editing while I was tired). During the conversation, , there was confusion as to rollbacks application in which I said I'd use it for whatever I wanted to (referring to clear vandalism, or non productive edits and I will reproduce here what I really meant, bolding my emphasis: The rollback feature is available to administrators and users with the rollbacker permission on Wikipedia as a fast method of undoing edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism and nonsense. So what I clearly meant, was that I felt that adding the pp tag when I thought that it wasn't protected was clearly nonsense (this also stems from me the fact that the editor who added it was not an admin, which confused me at the time) and unproductive. I also spoke clearer by explaining that I meant I would use my rollback for both (vandalism and unproductive edits at my discretion) Needless to say the whole thing was blown way out of proportion and when I explained all of this to VS, my rollback was restored and the matter was finished. I welcome anyone to look over my usage of rollback and show me an example of me using it improperly, which does not reflect an accident.
I think you are largely misrepresenting my stance on the Sharkface Award Center MfD. My initial interpretation was that a few of the members were "poisoning the well" and those individuals needed to be dealt with aside from the project which under my observation was created largely in good faith. I chose to !vote keep since its underlying intention was to improve the pedia. I didn't like all of the projects goals and activities, but felt that it needed drastic reformation to exist, and this couldn't happen with it being deleted. Once I noticed that its creator was willing to let it be deleted to start over, I changed to delete. I am in fact a supporter of projects that show evidence of improving articles, as I saw such evidence before it was deleted. I guess if you have to remind me about RfA Balloonman, I would have to say that I would ignore/sacrifice my adminship to retain my opinion that: any form of volunteering that shows evidence of good faith, constructive efforts yet has imperfections should have a home on wikipedia.
My interaction with jbmurray: I'm not sure what you mean by this either. My conversation with him went very well. I was fine with him overturning the MfD and I only remember positive things from our conversation. It started to take a turn when other editors joined in on my talk page, if that was what you meant. This was almost a full month ago now, and it hasn't happened again since, as I've stopped taking this course of action. It pleased me to see that you have come to review me, and I hope you stick to your word and come back. Synergy 16:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Synergy&oldid=1136459403"