Wikipedia:Editor review/seicer2

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)