Wikipedia:Editor review/Avruch
Avruch*[edit]
Avruch (talk · contribs) It looks like editor reviews are a little hit or miss, some get none, some get OK reviews, some get good ones. I haven't had one and I'm curious to see what folks think I can improve on. I'll try to get in a couple of reviews this week as reciprocity, seems fair. Avruch T Review 22:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Reviews
The discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Avruch is a lot more interesting than anything I can say here. I supported that request, and it's likely to be a close call.
Basically, I don't see the problem with wikidrama as long as (1) you are helping to resolve the situation, not inflame it, and (2) you keep wikidrama in perspective and devote most of your efforts to article writing or ordinary site maintenance. I think I pass muster on both counts, and so do you. Yechiel (Shalom) 17:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
- I echo the comments/question below. I thought you were an admin. Errr, go for it? Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I'm pretty happy with my contribs to Norman Finkelstein, J Michael Bailey and A Moral Reckoning (the three GA articles I've worked on). Also Daniel Goldhagen, Daniel Pipes, The Man Who Would Be Queen, Hitler's Willing Executioners, Abraham Foxman, Roger Stone and a few others. I also started the poll at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RfB bar (originally it was on WT:RFA) that led to changing the passing percentage for bureaucrats. Aside from these, I've cleaned up a number of articles, added references in many cases, and generally I hope made thoughtful comments in some difficult discussions at the various administrator noticeboards.
- 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 some minor content conflicts in the past, and I've commented or been peripherally involved in a number of conflicts at AN/I and one or two that were at arbitration. I think I've dealt with it fairly well - I have a tendency to be sarcastic, which I think I've kept reined in most of the time. My approach has generally been to not say anything that many people are saying, or anything that would increase the temperature without adding a significantly different or new point of view. In my opinion almost all conflicts on Wikipedia get blown out of proportion to their actual importance, and its important to keep that in mind. Wikipedia is a neat project, and Wikimedia is a very interesting foundation that has and can do a lot of good in the world - but, in the end, it is not my job and it is not life or death for me or anyone else. Some examples of controversial situations I've been involved in... Disputes at Norman Finkelstein, Giovanni di Stefano, Warren National University, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex, Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, The Man Who Would Be Queen and related J Michael Bailey to name a few off the top of my head. All of these disputes are pretty quiet at the moment, luckily, but they are all in perennially controversial subject areas so its not unlikely they will flare up again.
- Why in the world aren't you an admin?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with brewcrew. Shit, Avruch, I thought you were already an admin (and as you know, admins don't need to do silly things like editor review, they're invincible :-). Have you ever run an RfA? What's stopping you? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)