Wikipedia:Editor review/BrianWalker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Docboat

Docboat (talk ยท contribs) I have been editing Wikipedia for some time now, focusing on a few pages such as Freemasonry and also on the Malaysia portal. I had requested some coaching from admins, who pointed out I should get an idea of how my edits are perceived. I found the idea excellent, as I am looking for pointers to improve my contributions on all levels, and I feel I have been too limited in my approach. So here I am, hoping to see lots of suggestions and ideas. docboat 07:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • I have seen your contributions and find that you are an excellent editor. Your edits are wide and varied; they cover a lot of aspects in Wikipedia. You have 900+ edits on the mainspace, contributed to fighting vandalism and reported users in WP:AIV. Also, its nice that you have started using edit summaries. In case you didn't know, there is a setting in the "My preferences" button at the top of your page. There is an option there that prompts you (only once) if you were to forget to enter an edit summary. Now, although you are fairly active in Wikipedia, I suggest that you give your comments in AFDs and MFDs. If you really want some good suggestions, you can try WP:RFA and read the comments there. That's all I can say for now. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 06:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Pleased? Perhaps the article on Healthcare in Malaysia which I enjoyed putting together. Also in contributing to the tiny topic of Batu Kawan - but I feel most pleased at the times when I was involved in topics of discomfort, when I was able to keep an even balance, and hopefully help in putting NPOV views together. I am fairly involved in patrolling for vandals - I take pleasure in keeping Wikipedia clean.
  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?
    I have been involved in contentious topics in Freemasonry, Homeopathy - where I did not actually edit, but needed to comment on the talk page - and Food supplements which led on to the topic of Glyconutrients. I have come across editors with very strong POV, and I generally manage to keep civil, step back and think about better approaches. I use the talkpage to discuss, but will revert if I feel the case is good.

Editor clearly and explicitly fails to assume good faith, jumps to unwarranted conclusions, and refuses to address existing issues of substance, instead making unfounded comments on others. I honestly cannot see how this party would ever qualify as an administrator, given his history of raising accusations to avoid dealing with issues of substance. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well John, I thank you for giving me a taste of what it means to be put forward for admin. I would suggest that your opinion is not entirely unbiased, not quite free of the aggression you have customarily shown others when you disagree - but it is your opinion and it is a valid opinion. I will, on balance though, relegate it to the filing cabinet of experience. docboat (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I honestly expect everyone in time will receive such reviews, and think it's a good idea to see how people respond to them. You handled the response well, certainly better than I would have. Having said that, however, I do very much think that, particularly regarding a given subject, it is extremely unreasonable to believe that any and all outsiders are primarily influenced by existing biases, and to dismiss them on that basis. I am aware that there a number of "hot-button" issues out there, and that this is one such. However, such comments as you and others have made, quickly dismissing the input of others on the basis of perceived biases, in and of itself dramatically fails to assume good faith, and probably as a result helps increase the amount of tension in such discussions. Having said all that, personally, I wouldn't have any reservations about supporting your candidacy. Heated discussions regarding subjects which uniformly inspire particularly high emotional responses easily lead to such judgements. I simply wish that regarding that particular subject its "suppotters" didn't so quickly judge the input of all outsiders, as many so quickly do. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)