Seraphimblade
Seraphimblade ( talk · contribs) I have had one review already, and would like feedback on how I've come along since then. Please be completely honest with positive or negative suggestions, I would like to know where I'm doing well and where I can improve. Seraphimblade 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Reviews
-removed-
- Thanks for your constructive and very specific review!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. I didn't realize you had replied to the
personal attack. I removed it. I hope you don't mind. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs) 07:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- It was not intended as a very serious response. No trouble at all. :) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. I didn't realize you had replied to the
personal attack. I removed it. I hope you don't mind. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs) 07:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent This editor is exceptionally adept at recognizing when action is needed and is willing to put in the time to make things better. This really should be an RfA. Well balanced namespace experience, prudent judgement, and positive attitude all make up a superb editor who I am certain would make a great administrator. Please let me know when your RfA is up! Jerry 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent I was favorably impressed by this editor's responses to a concern I had regarding plagiarism in an article. He/she corrected my misunderstanding but did so in a civil and palatable way. He/she was also kind enough to respond to something I sent to their user talk page. I have looked at the editor's past edits and scrutinized them with my experience in mind, concluding that this editor seems to be quite mature (something I have found to be a precious commodity), tech-savvy, and have a good head on his/her shoulders. Will3935 00:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments I may respond to your review if you appear to be asking a question or to be unclear on something, or if I think there's more information you should know. If you are specifically requesting a response, or specifically would not like to receive a response, please indicate that, either request will be honored. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I've been involved with many, many articles. While I haven't gotten anything to FA, I've started a few subjects up on which coverage was lacking, such as EA Spouse and salt tectonics, and have participated in maintaining many articles. I concentrate more on bringing poor articles to decent quality then good ones to great. I've found or gotten sources for quite a few articles-the lack of reliable sourcing is a serious problem right now, and one which requires a lot more attention then it gets. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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 involved in some conflicts, but most of them have not caused any stress really. In my experience, the dispute resolution process really does work. There has been a contentious debate at Jews for Jesus regarding the proper presentation of the article (which was apparently going on for quite some time before I got there), but the current mediation has resulted in good compromise solutions and is nearing a successful resolution. I was also involved in a debate over the phrasing of the Quixtar entry at Google bomb. This debate also led to mediation, but the mediation led to an outcome acceptable to both sides and the dispute got resolved. I also help with and make use of the third opinion process, which can be an excellent and quick way to settle disputes between two editors in a disagreement, and have used requests for comment on more serious issues (articles only, I've never started a user RfC, and wouldn't do so except under the most extreme circumstances.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you feel validated in your role as a Wikipedia editor by sniping down random webcomic articles, and replying to acts of civil disobedience with canned templates?
- Answer These do seem a bit loaded, but I will answer you. As to "validation", I don't know about that, I just do things I believe should be. Nor is it ever my intent to "snipe down random...articles" of any kind. However, I do indeed do a lot of work with deletion of articles which appear to fail the
notability guidelines. When those are well-liked subjects, despite their lack of source mention, I do often catch hell for it. I don't enjoy that, and I certainly don't find it "validating", but I do have a thick enough skin to handle it.
- But why were you so quick to mark Kristofer Straub as non-notable? That's a bit too strong, suggesting he has no place, ever, in an encyclopedia that goes as far as having a dedicated editorial project on webcomics. Either he stays, or WikiProject Webcomics goes, I assure you. And this isn't the first time WikiProject Webcomics proves itself weak, losing the articles that validate its very existence to editorial whim (see Girly, see Ugly Hill).
- Surely a "lacks sources/references" tag would have sufficed. It suggests room for improvement, rather than a final judgement --
KJK::Hyperion 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if I'd made a "final judgment", I would've nominated for AfD-and even then it'd be the community at large that's the true final arbiter. I just put that there to express that there's some question as to whether the article's subject is a notable one. The notability tag doesn't call for deletion, it's just a standard maintenance tag that brings attention to a potential issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 10:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- As to "civil disobedience", if you're going to do something you specifically know is a "rogue" action (and indicate that with the edit summary), I wouldn't expect a positive reaction. Part of any act of civil disobedience is being ready to suffer the consequences, and a template warning is a relatively mild one as those go.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Consequences go both ways --
KJK::Hyperion 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- True enough! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 10:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Consequences go both ways --
KJK::Hyperion 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Answer These do seem a bit loaded, but I will answer you. As to "validation", I don't know about that, I just do things I believe should be. Nor is it ever my intent to "snipe down random...articles" of any kind. However, I do indeed do a lot of work with deletion of articles which appear to fail the
notability guidelines. When those are well-liked subjects, despite their lack of source mention, I do often catch hell for it. I don't enjoy that, and I certainly don't find it "validating", but I do have a thick enough skin to handle it.
- Is your face red after Kristopher Straub
demonstrated how vague and inefficient the VfD mechanism is, or do you consider yourself a better editor than those who allowed the planned auto-vandalism to happen?
- Answer I think all of our faces are a little red after that one! The single-purpose accounts should've been caught and tagged, at the very least, and that number should've brought someone's attention to the fact something was up. (I didn't participate in that AfD, though.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- In your opinion, do facts have a place in the work of a Wikipedia editor, or is a satisfying checklist of WP:* tagsoup enough? In other words, is a well-formed argument more important than a factual one? Do you ever research the factuality of any claims, in fact?
- Answer
Verifiable facts are the only things that have a place in Wikipedia. That's an important distinction though. I could write an article about myself stating my name, age, the name of my dog, who my parents were, what type of car I drive, and what I had for dinner last night. All of that information would be factual, but none is verifiable, nor is it appropriate to include in a project with this scope. As to checking facts, yes, I do that all the time! I've caught and nominated several hoax articles for deletion, and in the meantime have also added references and information to quite a few others. Before I add anything I fact check it-and more then once, I find out something I "remembered" or "just knew" was inaccurate!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I meant, in weighing disputes. There is a widespread perception that very vocal bureaucrats are being unfairly given an advantage because of the sniper-precision with which they can cite the correct WPs. I have seen contributions being reverted from historical articles (I can try and identify which, exactly), arbitrarily tagged as "original research" because they came from first-hand experiences. I also share the viewpoint that editors should be held to a higher standard, asking them for a certain degree of familiarity with the topic; I'll add that I'd like editors (or vigilantes like Gazpacho) to give "offenders" the benefit of the doubt, and attempt a dialog with them before taking action. A bad editor (or worse, an arrogant vigilante) can alienate a well-meaning contributor forever, while the editor, himself, will stay in business virtually forever.
- The bureaucracy is what worries me the most about Wikipedia, where honest mistakes are more easily flagged as malice, because the rules to flag content as "bad" are easier to apply
- I'm going to dinner. I'll add more when I'll come back --
KJK::Hyperion 11:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)--
- You're certainly not the first to bring up that concern, and it's a very valid one. Now, of course, the editors who flagged "firsthand experiences" as OR are entirely correct, but sometimes that is confusing for a new editor-"Why is my own experience considered unverifiable?" The issue we run into there, of course, is that if we let one person relate their experiences of playing with a given band, what do we tell the next person who then comes along and claims to have had a supernatural revelation? (That, and it really is unverifiable-just because one guy is totally honest and reports his experiences actually doesn't mean the next guy won't This is the main reason we don't allow firsthand experience, and have Wikinews for original reporting. (Of course, if your firsthand experience is reported in a reliable source, it's then entirely acceptable.) I think, though, that the best way we can eliminate that problem is to have some sort of "crash course" that a new contributor can read through in five or ten minutes, and get, if not the whole picture, at least a very good idea of the relevant policies/guidelines that (s)he might want to look at to get into whatever (s)he wants to do. Maybe I'll write that up tonight or tomorrow.
- What that gets us to, of course, is that the best thing to ensure that a few people aren't running the show singlehandedly is to get more people involved, and the faster they can get up to speed the better! I don't honestly think there's any kind of "plot" by any group of people to run this place singlehandedly. (Trust me, no sane person would want to try and run this show without as much help as possible. Go vandalfighting at some point, you'll see what I mean.) But of course, everyone develops experience at tasks they work with frequently, and everyone develops an affinity and working relationship with those they routinely work together with.
- Answer
Verifiable facts are the only things that have a place in Wikipedia. That's an important distinction though. I could write an article about myself stating my name, age, the name of my dog, who my parents were, what type of car I drive, and what I had for dinner last night. All of that information would be factual, but none is verifiable, nor is it appropriate to include in a project with this scope. As to checking facts, yes, I do that all the time! I've caught and nominated several hoax articles for deletion, and in the meantime have also added references and information to quite a few others. Before I add anything I fact check it-and more then once, I find out something I "remembered" or "just knew" was inaccurate!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think my questions don't apply to you, and why? And how do you concile your answer with your tagging of "
Kristofer Straub" as non-notable, which happened later on the same day he published his "
Delete Wikipedia: A Webcomics Case Study" blog post? If it's because you never heard of him before, how does your ignorance entitle you to judge his notability?
- Answer Your questions certainly all seem to apply to me-you're asking questions regarding the edits I've made, how wouldn't they? I did come to that article by following the DRV discussion. However, the fact that I tagged it with a notability tag was simply because no reliable secondary sources regarding this person were cited, and after doing some searching I couldn't find any. This does call into question whether the subject passes WP:N. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Will you delete my questions?
- Answer Well, I think you have your answer to that already. But absolutely not, when I said that both positive and negative feedback is welcome, I did mean that.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate that. Despite my accusatory tone, I'm trying hard to avoid rhetoric questions. I want real answers, and I'm bringing my questions where they pertain. I'm not taking potshots from the safety of my blog. So, thank you for putting up with my somewhat inflammatory tone -- KJK::Hyperion 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Answer Well, I think you have your answer to that already. But absolutely not, when I said that both positive and negative feedback is welcome, I did mean that.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Will you or another editor take revenge against me by marking my pet article "
List of Microsoft codenames" as non-notable, or inflicting mutilations on it wholly justified by non-constructive nitpickery? Worse, will you ban my account?
- Answer That article has tons of sources cited. If I or anyone tagged it as being of questionable notability, that person would be wrong to do so. And certainly nothing you've said here would remotely justify blocking you, you're supposed to ask questions and offer criticism on editor reviews!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I ask because I have had issues with it, recently, and because the notability of the article has been questioned in the past. The "issue", specifically, was a self-styled editor, Gazpacho, deciding that the title of the article should dictate mathematically the contents of the article (rather than the other way around, as a summary of the article's contents and herald to its spirit).
- He decided, among others, that Windows 2000 didn't pertain to the list, because Windows 2000 didn't have a codename; he was technically right, but... where are you supposed to document Windows 2000 didn't have a codename? and what about the "Preliminary name" column? The page documents those as well, they just seemed to fit with the topic, is a title supposed to match the contents exactly?
- My point is that I feel questioning an article is way too much easier than authoring one. I'm far from alone in my fear to see my pet articles disappearing because of overzealous application of policies --
KJK::Hyperion 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Trust me, questioning articles is not necessarily easier then authoring them-from personal experience (which we can use on this page!) you have to have a damn thick skin. You're certainly not the first person to take exception when I've questioned something, and you've been very civil about the matter. Not everyone is. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 10:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Answer That article has tons of sources cited. If I or anyone tagged it as being of questionable notability, that person would be wrong to do so. And certainly nothing you've said here would remotely justify blocking you, you're supposed to ask questions and offer criticism on editor reviews!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- What Would Jimbo Do?
- Answer
Ask him, if you want to, can't speak for anyone but me!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
Just kidding --
KJK::Hyperion 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well I can kid back a little can't I? :) Though that might make an entertaining title for some kind of April Fool's essay. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 10:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
-
Just kidding --
KJK::Hyperion 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Answer
Ask him, if you want to, can't speak for anyone but me!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- What if someone creates a wiki entry solely for the purposes of personal activism/vandalism?
- Generally, in such cases, it would meet one of the speedy deletion criteria, and regardless if unsalvageable or an inappropriate subject altogether it would be deleted. How exactly it would happen depends on the specific case, but that really does happen, all the time, and any experienced editor is very used to dealing with that problem. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you believe the community response to the recent Essjay controversy was handled well? Specifically, do you think that the procedures were followed, and were they effective?
Jerry lavoie 04:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think some parts of the community handled it exceptionally well, some were obviously hurt and distraught and lost their cool a bit, and some, to be honest, acted disgracefully. I'm not going to name names here, I guess to some degree that's to be expected with such a scenario. On the whole, I think we did the best we could. If anyone had earned the community's trust, it was Essjay. It came as a shock, then, to find out that he had not only lied to us, but had told a lie to the world, essentially on our behalf, that reflected back on all of us. Is it the worst thing anyone's done in the history of the world? Far from it. But a lot of people's confidence was certainly badly shaken, and I think that Essjay stepping down from his positions of trust had to happen. I am, however, sorry to see him leave altogether, and I hope he'll come back-whether as Essjay or with a new name and a clean slate. Whether he does or does not, I really do wish him the best of luck. As to procedures being followed, basically, there was going to be comment, so I'd rather see it done in a single RFC then a bunch of sniping all over different pages and on IRC. Basically-we don't have procedures in place for everything, so when something comes up we haven't dealt with before, we ask the community for their thoughts. Imperfect? Sometimes. But the rough spots and more extreme elements tend to get smoothed out by the calmer voices, and usually, it worked pretty well. With Essjay's situation, when that bomb hit, it was going to do some damage. I think we did as well as we could at trying to make sure it did as little as possible. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your opinion on the Essjay controversy itself aside, do you think there are any lessons for the community to learn on dealing with any future controversies involving its administrators and bureaucrats, and others with special tools access?
Jerry lavoie 04:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I stated in the RFC, if anything must be true above all of people in positions of trust, it must be that the community can and does trust their judgment and integrity. That means, among other things, that when that person speaks, we can be assured that what is said is the truth. Does that mean they must tell everything? Of course not. "I prefer not to reveal personal information of any type on Wikipedia" is a perfectly honest statement, and no one should be required to reveal a thing they're not comfortable with. However, if one does choose to reveal personal information, it should be truthful. If I could sum up one lesson that I hope every member of the community takes away from this, it would be "Respect each other enough to tell the truth." Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent -- I only have one experience with Seraphimblade, and it was a shining example of how senior editors' objectivity should be. Seraphimblade has begun to restore my faith in Wikipedia's community. I have encountered some very good senior editors and admins, I have encountered some abusive ones throughout the Wiki projects. Seraphimblade was respectful, profession, fair, informative, helpful...continue adding other synonyms...in my experience. Wikipedia is well served by Seraphimblade. And that is not a compliment I throw around freely. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic -- is blocking vandals like there's no tomorrow! :D Chrisch 12:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Seraphimblade
Seraphimblade ( talk · contribs) I have had one review already, and would like feedback on how I've come along since then. Please be completely honest with positive or negative suggestions, I would like to know where I'm doing well and where I can improve. Seraphimblade 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Reviews
-removed-
- Thanks for your constructive and very specific review!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. I didn't realize you had replied to the
personal attack. I removed it. I hope you don't mind. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs) 07:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- It was not intended as a very serious response. No trouble at all. :) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. I didn't realize you had replied to the
personal attack. I removed it. I hope you don't mind. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs) 07:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent This editor is exceptionally adept at recognizing when action is needed and is willing to put in the time to make things better. This really should be an RfA. Well balanced namespace experience, prudent judgement, and positive attitude all make up a superb editor who I am certain would make a great administrator. Please let me know when your RfA is up! Jerry 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent I was favorably impressed by this editor's responses to a concern I had regarding plagiarism in an article. He/she corrected my misunderstanding but did so in a civil and palatable way. He/she was also kind enough to respond to something I sent to their user talk page. I have looked at the editor's past edits and scrutinized them with my experience in mind, concluding that this editor seems to be quite mature (something I have found to be a precious commodity), tech-savvy, and have a good head on his/her shoulders. Will3935 00:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments I may respond to your review if you appear to be asking a question or to be unclear on something, or if I think there's more information you should know. If you are specifically requesting a response, or specifically would not like to receive a response, please indicate that, either request will be honored. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I've been involved with many, many articles. While I haven't gotten anything to FA, I've started a few subjects up on which coverage was lacking, such as EA Spouse and salt tectonics, and have participated in maintaining many articles. I concentrate more on bringing poor articles to decent quality then good ones to great. I've found or gotten sources for quite a few articles-the lack of reliable sourcing is a serious problem right now, and one which requires a lot more attention then it gets. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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 involved in some conflicts, but most of them have not caused any stress really. In my experience, the dispute resolution process really does work. There has been a contentious debate at Jews for Jesus regarding the proper presentation of the article (which was apparently going on for quite some time before I got there), but the current mediation has resulted in good compromise solutions and is nearing a successful resolution. I was also involved in a debate over the phrasing of the Quixtar entry at Google bomb. This debate also led to mediation, but the mediation led to an outcome acceptable to both sides and the dispute got resolved. I also help with and make use of the third opinion process, which can be an excellent and quick way to settle disputes between two editors in a disagreement, and have used requests for comment on more serious issues (articles only, I've never started a user RfC, and wouldn't do so except under the most extreme circumstances.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you feel validated in your role as a Wikipedia editor by sniping down random webcomic articles, and replying to acts of civil disobedience with canned templates?
- Answer These do seem a bit loaded, but I will answer you. As to "validation", I don't know about that, I just do things I believe should be. Nor is it ever my intent to "snipe down random...articles" of any kind. However, I do indeed do a lot of work with deletion of articles which appear to fail the
notability guidelines. When those are well-liked subjects, despite their lack of source mention, I do often catch hell for it. I don't enjoy that, and I certainly don't find it "validating", but I do have a thick enough skin to handle it.
- But why were you so quick to mark Kristofer Straub as non-notable? That's a bit too strong, suggesting he has no place, ever, in an encyclopedia that goes as far as having a dedicated editorial project on webcomics. Either he stays, or WikiProject Webcomics goes, I assure you. And this isn't the first time WikiProject Webcomics proves itself weak, losing the articles that validate its very existence to editorial whim (see Girly, see Ugly Hill).
- Surely a "lacks sources/references" tag would have sufficed. It suggests room for improvement, rather than a final judgement --
KJK::Hyperion 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if I'd made a "final judgment", I would've nominated for AfD-and even then it'd be the community at large that's the true final arbiter. I just put that there to express that there's some question as to whether the article's subject is a notable one. The notability tag doesn't call for deletion, it's just a standard maintenance tag that brings attention to a potential issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 10:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- As to "civil disobedience", if you're going to do something you specifically know is a "rogue" action (and indicate that with the edit summary), I wouldn't expect a positive reaction. Part of any act of civil disobedience is being ready to suffer the consequences, and a template warning is a relatively mild one as those go.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Consequences go both ways --
KJK::Hyperion 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- True enough! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 10:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Consequences go both ways --
KJK::Hyperion 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Answer These do seem a bit loaded, but I will answer you. As to "validation", I don't know about that, I just do things I believe should be. Nor is it ever my intent to "snipe down random...articles" of any kind. However, I do indeed do a lot of work with deletion of articles which appear to fail the
notability guidelines. When those are well-liked subjects, despite their lack of source mention, I do often catch hell for it. I don't enjoy that, and I certainly don't find it "validating", but I do have a thick enough skin to handle it.
- Is your face red after Kristopher Straub
demonstrated how vague and inefficient the VfD mechanism is, or do you consider yourself a better editor than those who allowed the planned auto-vandalism to happen?
- Answer I think all of our faces are a little red after that one! The single-purpose accounts should've been caught and tagged, at the very least, and that number should've brought someone's attention to the fact something was up. (I didn't participate in that AfD, though.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- In your opinion, do facts have a place in the work of a Wikipedia editor, or is a satisfying checklist of WP:* tagsoup enough? In other words, is a well-formed argument more important than a factual one? Do you ever research the factuality of any claims, in fact?
- Answer
Verifiable facts are the only things that have a place in Wikipedia. That's an important distinction though. I could write an article about myself stating my name, age, the name of my dog, who my parents were, what type of car I drive, and what I had for dinner last night. All of that information would be factual, but none is verifiable, nor is it appropriate to include in a project with this scope. As to checking facts, yes, I do that all the time! I've caught and nominated several hoax articles for deletion, and in the meantime have also added references and information to quite a few others. Before I add anything I fact check it-and more then once, I find out something I "remembered" or "just knew" was inaccurate!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I meant, in weighing disputes. There is a widespread perception that very vocal bureaucrats are being unfairly given an advantage because of the sniper-precision with which they can cite the correct WPs. I have seen contributions being reverted from historical articles (I can try and identify which, exactly), arbitrarily tagged as "original research" because they came from first-hand experiences. I also share the viewpoint that editors should be held to a higher standard, asking them for a certain degree of familiarity with the topic; I'll add that I'd like editors (or vigilantes like Gazpacho) to give "offenders" the benefit of the doubt, and attempt a dialog with them before taking action. A bad editor (or worse, an arrogant vigilante) can alienate a well-meaning contributor forever, while the editor, himself, will stay in business virtually forever.
- The bureaucracy is what worries me the most about Wikipedia, where honest mistakes are more easily flagged as malice, because the rules to flag content as "bad" are easier to apply
- I'm going to dinner. I'll add more when I'll come back --
KJK::Hyperion 11:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)--
- You're certainly not the first to bring up that concern, and it's a very valid one. Now, of course, the editors who flagged "firsthand experiences" as OR are entirely correct, but sometimes that is confusing for a new editor-"Why is my own experience considered unverifiable?" The issue we run into there, of course, is that if we let one person relate their experiences of playing with a given band, what do we tell the next person who then comes along and claims to have had a supernatural revelation? (That, and it really is unverifiable-just because one guy is totally honest and reports his experiences actually doesn't mean the next guy won't This is the main reason we don't allow firsthand experience, and have Wikinews for original reporting. (Of course, if your firsthand experience is reported in a reliable source, it's then entirely acceptable.) I think, though, that the best way we can eliminate that problem is to have some sort of "crash course" that a new contributor can read through in five or ten minutes, and get, if not the whole picture, at least a very good idea of the relevant policies/guidelines that (s)he might want to look at to get into whatever (s)he wants to do. Maybe I'll write that up tonight or tomorrow.
- What that gets us to, of course, is that the best thing to ensure that a few people aren't running the show singlehandedly is to get more people involved, and the faster they can get up to speed the better! I don't honestly think there's any kind of "plot" by any group of people to run this place singlehandedly. (Trust me, no sane person would want to try and run this show without as much help as possible. Go vandalfighting at some point, you'll see what I mean.) But of course, everyone develops experience at tasks they work with frequently, and everyone develops an affinity and working relationship with those they routinely work together with.
- Answer
Verifiable facts are the only things that have a place in Wikipedia. That's an important distinction though. I could write an article about myself stating my name, age, the name of my dog, who my parents were, what type of car I drive, and what I had for dinner last night. All of that information would be factual, but none is verifiable, nor is it appropriate to include in a project with this scope. As to checking facts, yes, I do that all the time! I've caught and nominated several hoax articles for deletion, and in the meantime have also added references and information to quite a few others. Before I add anything I fact check it-and more then once, I find out something I "remembered" or "just knew" was inaccurate!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think my questions don't apply to you, and why? And how do you concile your answer with your tagging of "
Kristofer Straub" as non-notable, which happened later on the same day he published his "
Delete Wikipedia: A Webcomics Case Study" blog post? If it's because you never heard of him before, how does your ignorance entitle you to judge his notability?
- Answer Your questions certainly all seem to apply to me-you're asking questions regarding the edits I've made, how wouldn't they? I did come to that article by following the DRV discussion. However, the fact that I tagged it with a notability tag was simply because no reliable secondary sources regarding this person were cited, and after doing some searching I couldn't find any. This does call into question whether the subject passes WP:N. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Will you delete my questions?
- Answer Well, I think you have your answer to that already. But absolutely not, when I said that both positive and negative feedback is welcome, I did mean that.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate that. Despite my accusatory tone, I'm trying hard to avoid rhetoric questions. I want real answers, and I'm bringing my questions where they pertain. I'm not taking potshots from the safety of my blog. So, thank you for putting up with my somewhat inflammatory tone -- KJK::Hyperion 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Answer Well, I think you have your answer to that already. But absolutely not, when I said that both positive and negative feedback is welcome, I did mean that.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Will you or another editor take revenge against me by marking my pet article "
List of Microsoft codenames" as non-notable, or inflicting mutilations on it wholly justified by non-constructive nitpickery? Worse, will you ban my account?
- Answer That article has tons of sources cited. If I or anyone tagged it as being of questionable notability, that person would be wrong to do so. And certainly nothing you've said here would remotely justify blocking you, you're supposed to ask questions and offer criticism on editor reviews!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I ask because I have had issues with it, recently, and because the notability of the article has been questioned in the past. The "issue", specifically, was a self-styled editor, Gazpacho, deciding that the title of the article should dictate mathematically the contents of the article (rather than the other way around, as a summary of the article's contents and herald to its spirit).
- He decided, among others, that Windows 2000 didn't pertain to the list, because Windows 2000 didn't have a codename; he was technically right, but... where are you supposed to document Windows 2000 didn't have a codename? and what about the "Preliminary name" column? The page documents those as well, they just seemed to fit with the topic, is a title supposed to match the contents exactly?
- My point is that I feel questioning an article is way too much easier than authoring one. I'm far from alone in my fear to see my pet articles disappearing because of overzealous application of policies --
KJK::Hyperion 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Trust me, questioning articles is not necessarily easier then authoring them-from personal experience (which we can use on this page!) you have to have a damn thick skin. You're certainly not the first person to take exception when I've questioned something, and you've been very civil about the matter. Not everyone is. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 10:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Answer That article has tons of sources cited. If I or anyone tagged it as being of questionable notability, that person would be wrong to do so. And certainly nothing you've said here would remotely justify blocking you, you're supposed to ask questions and offer criticism on editor reviews!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- What Would Jimbo Do?
- Answer
Ask him, if you want to, can't speak for anyone but me!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
Just kidding --
KJK::Hyperion 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well I can kid back a little can't I? :) Though that might make an entertaining title for some kind of April Fool's essay. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 10:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
-
Just kidding --
KJK::Hyperion 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Answer
Ask him, if you want to, can't speak for anyone but me!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
Please review me! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- What if someone creates a wiki entry solely for the purposes of personal activism/vandalism?
- Generally, in such cases, it would meet one of the speedy deletion criteria, and regardless if unsalvageable or an inappropriate subject altogether it would be deleted. How exactly it would happen depends on the specific case, but that really does happen, all the time, and any experienced editor is very used to dealing with that problem. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you believe the community response to the recent Essjay controversy was handled well? Specifically, do you think that the procedures were followed, and were they effective?
Jerry lavoie 04:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think some parts of the community handled it exceptionally well, some were obviously hurt and distraught and lost their cool a bit, and some, to be honest, acted disgracefully. I'm not going to name names here, I guess to some degree that's to be expected with such a scenario. On the whole, I think we did the best we could. If anyone had earned the community's trust, it was Essjay. It came as a shock, then, to find out that he had not only lied to us, but had told a lie to the world, essentially on our behalf, that reflected back on all of us. Is it the worst thing anyone's done in the history of the world? Far from it. But a lot of people's confidence was certainly badly shaken, and I think that Essjay stepping down from his positions of trust had to happen. I am, however, sorry to see him leave altogether, and I hope he'll come back-whether as Essjay or with a new name and a clean slate. Whether he does or does not, I really do wish him the best of luck. As to procedures being followed, basically, there was going to be comment, so I'd rather see it done in a single RFC then a bunch of sniping all over different pages and on IRC. Basically-we don't have procedures in place for everything, so when something comes up we haven't dealt with before, we ask the community for their thoughts. Imperfect? Sometimes. But the rough spots and more extreme elements tend to get smoothed out by the calmer voices, and usually, it worked pretty well. With Essjay's situation, when that bomb hit, it was going to do some damage. I think we did as well as we could at trying to make sure it did as little as possible. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your opinion on the Essjay controversy itself aside, do you think there are any lessons for the community to learn on dealing with any future controversies involving its administrators and bureaucrats, and others with special tools access?
Jerry lavoie 04:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I stated in the RFC, if anything must be true above all of people in positions of trust, it must be that the community can and does trust their judgment and integrity. That means, among other things, that when that person speaks, we can be assured that what is said is the truth. Does that mean they must tell everything? Of course not. "I prefer not to reveal personal information of any type on Wikipedia" is a perfectly honest statement, and no one should be required to reveal a thing they're not comfortable with. However, if one does choose to reveal personal information, it should be truthful. If I could sum up one lesson that I hope every member of the community takes away from this, it would be "Respect each other enough to tell the truth." Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent -- I only have one experience with Seraphimblade, and it was a shining example of how senior editors' objectivity should be. Seraphimblade has begun to restore my faith in Wikipedia's community. I have encountered some very good senior editors and admins, I have encountered some abusive ones throughout the Wiki projects. Seraphimblade was respectful, profession, fair, informative, helpful...continue adding other synonyms...in my experience. Wikipedia is well served by Seraphimblade. And that is not a compliment I throw around freely. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic -- is blocking vandals like there's no tomorrow! :D Chrisch 12:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)