Wikipedia:Editor review/seicer2

seicer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

seicer (talk · contribs) I would appreciate some comments regarding my recent dive into more controversial topics, in dealing with other editors, and of my contributions at various noticeboards and at 3O/WQA. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

Extended content

Note: In the interest of other editors, I've reinstated the following comments. I felt that the editor was not experienced enough to make qualified judgements (EC < 500), and that those who review should do an exhaustive or at least a non-partial review of the user's edits that extend beyond Interiot's EC Tool. You don't seem to realize that it takes two editors to edit war. You solved your differences with Cocoliras on the North America article simply by reverting every edit he made. There are other ways to solve this problem. As far as your editing goes, you seem to mostly have edited Pullman Square and University of Kentucky, as you have mentioned below, and other than that it's mostly vandal fighting and reporting users to admins. I would suggest moving around more. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 02:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC) What a wholly negative view; you do realize I have over 11,000 edits, correct? And that I do "move around" more -- having contributed to more than the two articles you stated, and that my "vandal fighting" is much more in depth than that? That I am an active guest at WP:WQA, WP:3O, an active participant of the Mediation Committee, currently working on an active sock case, among other duties. Yes, it does take two editors to edit war, but have you not reviewed Cocoliras (talk · contribs) prior edits? Or his blocks? Or that other editors at North America and etc. have agreed that his edits were not constructive and were reverting them based upon OR among other reasons? Or the other administrator warnings? Probably not, because not every edit was made to simply "revert" or else I'd be on the receiving end of the administrator stick. Requesting a more faithful review, where a user will actually dive into my prior contributions and not take every edit at face value. Take this as a good reference point; just because an edit may not take the top 10 list at Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool, doesn't negate its value at WP. Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC) "Not take every edit at face value?" What do you expect us to do, read your mind? Don't ask for editor reviews if you don't want to hear what they say, Seicer. Also, if you really like what your old review said, go read it. I won't quote it for you. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC) No, but I would expect that in an editor review, that the reviewee would spend some time, as required, to give an accurate analysis of the editor's prior contributions -- something that involves more than looking at Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool. The prior editor review should give some insight on how it should be properly addressed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC) I didn't even look at the tool, Seicer. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Then you would have noticed that I have edited articles outside of Pullman Square and University of Kentucky, and have made many contributions elsewhere. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC) <argument>If you don't like a review, why don't you just ignore it?</argument><honestquestion>Why don't you have a userpage? For most people, that's the first thing they do.</honestquestion> Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, I do. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it is the reviewer that needs to accept criticism here. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   Most likely my GA nominated Pullman Square. But regarding my more recent edits, University of Kentucky. Although it failed GA-status, I feel that it has a strong chance with continued improvement. The same can be said of the Ashland Community and Technical College article, which has went from a wholly underdeveloped fragment to one that contains a wealth of information -- and has now been promoted to Good Article status.

   I'm also pleased of my WP:WQA involvement, and my "take charge" attitude at Bernie Ward, which was suffering from a serious BLP vios., and a lot of formatting issues after it was posted at WQA. I have also become involved with WP:3O and with the Mediation Committee, currently working with Cold Fusion.

   More specifics can be found at my MC page so that I am not duplicating in entirely here.

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?

   *WP:ANI#Long-term WP:AGF and WP:NPA abuse: The most recent, but it has not given me some stress. I am mostly concerned because it is a user with a long-term issue with personal attacks and incivility, and has been blocked multiple times in the past. His e-mail threats included reporting me for vandalism, something in regards to my MC appointment and for discrimination due to his deafness. I've handled this to the best of my ability, applying warnings, notifying admins and past admins that have been involved with the user, and there is only so much that I can do at this moment. I've applied the usual warning templates, as has other editors and admins, and outside of what I reported to ANI, there isn't much that I can do.

   *Wikieditor9999 (talk · contribs) in general. A very persistent editor who had a possible COI regarding the deletion of Cayra. The user did not cause a lot of stress due to unilateral support against the user's actions, however, it did cause some grief given that it consumed up more of my resources than I had expected. It has since been resolved.

5. Note: I have a prior editor review, which can be viewed here.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.