Wikipedia:Editor review/Thejadefalcon

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Thejadefalcon

Thejadefalcon (talk · contribs · count) I've been an editor on Wikipedia for nine and a half months and have had this page under consideration for some time. I want to know what my weaknesses are so I can put some more work into improving them. I've received some queries about if I would like help to become an admin, something which I don't feel I'm anywhere near ready for but would like to be one day. Therefore I want to place myself under scrutiny in order to help crush this likely delusional fantasy of mine. ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    Almost all of my contributions are to video games, though I am hoping to expand soon into other sections (for instance, WikiProject Harry Potter or the articles relating to Tamora Pierce books). I am proud of few edits because I know that they'll be changed soon very rapidly. However, I am pleased about my first major edit, to The Lord of the Rings: Conquest, which was neutral point of view for a game I utterly despise and also gained me my first barnstar. A smaller edit to Aliens vs. Predator (video game) also seemed very good at the time, but doesn't look as big as I remember now that I've fished it out of my contribution list. Finally, I created what was to be my first article, only to find out that it was already on Wikipedia (last I'd heard, it had been deleted). Under the guidance of xeno, I replaced the content of Fable III with my own version of the article. Now that I have installed Twinkle, however, I have found that my user talk page edits have skyrocketed and I now focus simply on anti-terrorism vandal-fighting. While it can be very cathartic and while someone needs to try to take on J.delanoy, part of me also wants to get back to actually hunting for and adding my own content one day rather than simply reverting. I have also just taken on my first two users as adoptees, NarSakSasLee and The.Filsouf, and am waiting to see how I get on with that. Finally, I forgot to mention, as I said on Taelus' talk page, I'm also involved in Usernames for administrator attention. As you'll see below, Katerenka has now directed me to Special:NewPages and I'm going to try to do at least one, maybe two articles on there a day (though so far, I've done something like ten in two days).
  3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past (please note that this does not refer to (edit conflict)) 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?
    Ah. Here was why I had to force myself to submit myself for an editor review. I have had a virtually spotless record until yesterday, with only very, very minor disputes (that I can remember, anyway), no blocks and very few warnings. Unfortunately, that all crashed down around my ears last night. I have recently become a talk page stalker and noticed an IP talking to EdJohnston and being fairly rude about it. I warned him for personal attacks and was going to continue to try to calm him down and get him back involved in the project. That went... well, badly, would be the understatement of this millenium. On my third comment to his talk page, I was reduced to incoherent fury. After PMDrive1061 blocked them, I did what I had later promised on that talk page and reported myself, both to PMDrive1061 as the blocking admin and xeno as an unofficial mentor. Both admins forgave me, xeno in the thread I created on his talk page, PMDrive1061 on my talk page, but I still feel guilty about snapping like that. I rarely lose my temper, but when I do, I get no warning myself and I also telegraph no warning to others. I simply go berserk, which is not a good thing. Hopefully, that let off some steam and it'll be a long, long time before anything like that ever happens again, either on Wikipedia or in the real world. Nevertheless, I feel ashamed about it (though you probably hear that from everyone who does such a thing) and I don't ever want to do it again. The sickening irony, however, is that that very morning I had created two templates with the intention of calming down an dispute.


Reviews

  • As I said in the comment with the barnstar I gave you, I think you are an excellent editor who is passionate about what they do and has the best interests of the project at heart. However, indeed as you admit you may get a bit too passionate at times when dealing with vandalism/personal attacks. Perhaps you should take some time before you reply when the situation gets hot, if you can manage to do so. I would also suggest you try to balance your activities, so that if you find yourself getting a bit frustrated with anti-vandalism tasks, you can simply put them aside and work on some content. Or perhaps you need a wikibreak, even if it is only a few days, which can help you feel refreshed and reflect on your choices. Additionally, may I recommend that you get involved in some project space things such as AfD and RfD? It could help you gain more experience and consider whether you do want to run for adminship in the long-run. However, suggestions aside, you are a great editor, and I will say again that your edits to video game articles and the WikiProject are inspiring to others, as your enthusiasm and openness is what a community project should be all about. Keep up the good work, and remember no editor is perfect, and the best you can do is to continually improve yourself. Also one final suggestion, although I am unsure if it is possible since I am not a frequent tools user: Try adding "Reason: <Description>" onto the end of your Undo/Revert edits, even if it is vandalism. It can really help the users to understand what they did wrong in non-blatant cases, and can help other editors read the page history flow better. Hope my comments help, happy editing to you. --Taelus (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • xeno said the same about taking time to reply here and I agreed with him. If I catch myself making what may be construed as an attack of some sort, I find a way to reword it or just give up. Honestly, if I had caught myself saying what I did... I'm not sure what I would have done. I was furious and upset and I let an event from my past I never wanted to confront again catch up with me when I wasn't expecting it. To be honest, some part of me says that, even if I had noticed before I posted it, I still would have continued out of blind anger, though I suppose we'll never know. It's over, it's happened and I don't censor previously posted comments because I feel that makes me seem like I have something to hide. I've reburied the reason for my anger with the help of a friend and I believe I'm ready to kick some vandal posteriors in the nicest possible manner once more. As for AfD and RfD, I do occasionally get involved, but not enough that I felt it was worth listing them. Since my mess up of attempting to get WikiProject BioWare deleted, I've been reluctant to get too deeply involved, though I did get involved in Categories for discussion briefly to nominate Category: 28 Days Later for deletion. As for the idea about the edit summary, it is possible to create an additional edit summary with Twinkle (the only tool I use barring my rollback feature priviledge), but only when reverting good faith or normal edits. As far as I can see, you don't get the option for adding an extra summary when reverting pure vandalism. I've already started doing it here, though it may take some time for it to become habit. When I'm undoing something manually, however, (usually when Twinkle is down and it's not pure vandalism (making rollback unusable)) Firefox saves my edit summary for future use and that can get crowded if I have many varying edit summaries and I haven't found a way to remove them yet, so I try to keep things simple (e.g. "Comment," "Unneeded," "Rewording" or "Grammar" et cetera). Thanks again for your review and all the suggestions you gave me. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am shocked. In several years of using the worlds fifth most popular website it is the first I have come across anyone using such language. I think before anyone even begins to stop and pat each other on the back for good editing, or suggest new administrative capacities for the type of behaviour in discussion, that someone should go in and remove the offending words, replacing them which clear links to this page and the appropriate Wikipedia guidelines. While the words themselves are too offensive for an encyclopedia, the comment should stand as a reminder.
Blurting out an ill chosen word in conversation may be considered to be forgivable. It isn't as simple as that. Specific comments were chosen as a response - time was taken to format the response, Wikipedia editing guidelines followed to a degree. Yet all done with malice and in the full understanding that these words would become part of the public record. And there is no isolated incident. There is a clear intent shown here - not a stray moment of weakness, a process of recording thoughts in the manner intended. This shows that the editor in question is capable of acting out on their thoughts without regard to the consequences.
I have yet to see anywhere where thejadefalcon has been given a warning for their use of language and disruptive behaviour, that would seem to be a good first step. While the incident in itself would seem insufficient to have to ban this editor, it should be noted that it must necessitate that thejadefalcon must not at any time be given administrator status and the opportunity to do real damage with ill chosen responses. Someone who will lose their temper for a moment and then consider their actions would not become engaged in a prolonged, perfectly formatted dispute with repeated cursing - this lack of judgment should bar such a person from holding any position of authority which they could abuse. Weakopedia (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally wrote a eight or nine paragraph response to this but none of it seemed right. So, I'll keep this as simple as I can (and after typing the rest of this, it still doesn't seem right, but I feel I need to respond). I'm not proud of it. I made a mistake, I admitted that. I requested punishment. I was told, by an administrator, that he or she "have completely blown gaskets in far worse ways than you just did" (whether they were an admin or not at the time is unstated, though it is clear that others felt it was forgiveable, otherwise they would not have gained/kept their admin tools) and that we're "only human." Humans make mistakes. I'm not using this as an excuse, as I hope my self-reporting indicates, I'm saying this as fact. What 71.174.142.108 said hurt. Badly. Was my response out of malice? No. Malice implies a cold-blooded act. I was furious and upset and it was an act of passion. Acting like that... it made the pain ease slightly. Not much, but it helped. Reporting myself afterwards was my attempt to make up for a moment of selfishness where I cared more about trying to come to terms with my own feelings than improving Wikipedia. I'm not a sweary person at all. I do not use this language on a daily basis, online or in the real world. I've... lost the ability to keep this as simple as I wanted and I have to leave now, so I don't have the time to rewrite this again. Therefore, I hope that repeating what I have said previously will have to do: I'm sorry. I really am. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 12:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, come on Weakopedia, don't you think you're being too harsh? Thejadefalcon has explicitly stated several times that he knows he's done wrong. He's even asked for punishment. So what purpose could a warning possibly serve? It would be entirely redundant. This is an editor who spends hours of his time reverting vandalism, and suffering from personal attacks (from the vandals he reverts). He snaps once, after a particularly bad instance of it, probably related to something pretty personal, and we're expected to condemn him for the rest of his life? No. Unless the user has a long history of this, it doesn't really happen like that on Wikipedia. It's obvious he's learned from his mistakes, and has shown a great deal of remorse, and that's what'll count in a RfA. An editor doesn't need to be completely perfect to be an admin. How will administrator tools increase his ability to do "real damage"? And another thing, administrators don't really have much more "authority" than regular users, see WP:DEAL and WP:TROPHY, see below, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 15:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Spongefrog, that really all depends on whether you want Wikipedia to be seen as dealing fairly and evenly with problems that arise. If a transgression has been committed then it is fitting that there should be an official response. If not then it becomes a bit like religion - you must follow the Wikicommandments or you will be punished. Except if you pray first for forgiveness. The problem with this approach is that it provides a "get out of jail free" card if you can sound convincing with your alibi, and this encourages Wikipedians to shout first knowing that a timely apology shall get them to Wikiheaven.
It should not be up to the individual Wikipedian to assess how best to atone for their sins. That should be done following an established framework. The warning for abusive language should be automatic, otherwise justice is not seen to be done. In fact justice then becomes something the individual Wikipedian may judge for themselves, which is a dangerous precedent.
Whilst Thejadefalcon may have the best of intentions his cause is not best served by stories of how other editors managed to act out and get away with it. No amount of provocation justifies using swear words on a service used by children. If I was too harsh then my apologies. Nevertheless some people are being too lenient, and there has yet to be reached a middle ground. Weakopedia (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Reasonable. I agree with most of that. But, as Thejadefalcon has showed so much remorse, this was clearly a one-off thing, which is unlikely to happen again. Warnings/block are really for repeated incivility (I hate to name names, but User:Roux is a good example). A warning notifies him he's acted wrongly, telling him not to do it again, which would seem kind of redundant in this case. And on the topic of swearing. I completely agree with you. I don't think it should be used on Wikipedia. But apparently, people can use swear words casually on Wikipedia, just so long as they're not used maliciously or to create offense. See WP:CENSORED. Of course, thejadefalcon did use them to create offense so it doesn't apply here, I just thought I'd say. If you really think he has to have a warning, what's to stop you issuing him with one yourself? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← Thanks for the response. I am personally satisfied with Thejadefalcons attempt to rectify a mistake that he himself has admitted to. Obviously everyone is in agreement that no punishment is warranted. The one person who might disagree would be the person against whom the remarks were intended. That person is unlikely to participate in this discussion and for good reason, having been punished for their own transgressions. However is that not a good measure? If we accept that each editor is responisble for their own words for the sake of argument we can ignore the specifics of the case and generalise. There is always an aggrieved party when swear words are used, and their use may serve to harm the projects standing in the eyes of third parties. Swear words constitute an argumentative stance that is incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. As you rightly stated the fact that the use of these words in this context was against policy is beyond refute. Thejadefalcon has gone to length to take responsibility for his actions and that is to be commended. The consensus is that Thejadefalcon is genuinely sorry and it won't happen again, which I am happy to support. However to generalise again, I believe that offensive remarks can damage the credibility of the project and should be addressed promptly, with any subsequent apologies being taken into consideration with regards to followup action. The apology shouldn't affect the initial reprimand or the impression can be given that an editor can say what they want provided they are timely with a retraction should that become necessary. It should instead be implicit that swearing and combatitive language are intolerable. It is already somewhat implicit in the rules, but this type of procedure reflects the application of those rules by the community and in many ways is more of a measure of what will be accepted. As to your question I do not consider myself to be familiar enough with Wikipedia policy to go around warning individual editors and feel more comfortable adding my views to the more general discussion. Weakopedia (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've seen these review things around but haven't paid much attention to them basically because I have yet to come across an editor with whom I have any real dealings and who want feedback. You're no exception. We haven't really had any dealings other than a misunderstood warning on an IP's talk (if people really want to know what was said, they can search through my history) and yet I am strangely compelled to review you as an editor. I think this review may be useful to you because while I have a very limited experience of your WP activities I have had a quick peruse through your current talk (I'm a talk stalker I'm afraid) and this review page and think that in many ways we're very similar editors (although the 'attack' that led you to starting this review is nothing in comparison to what I can do [1] I'm not proud of it screw that, it's the greatest contribution I've made to the project!) in that we're pretty dedicated to the project yet approach it in a laid-back sort of way. Basically I know first hand (if you can be bothered, try tracking down some arguments I've been involved with) that it's really easy to get over-excited in arguments or with vandals but that that doesn't mean we're any less dedicated to the project then any other contributor so keep up the good work (and let's face it - every so often we come up with some pretty entertaining warnings!) All that's left to say is please leave me alone - you attract the weirdos!! raseaCtalk to me 23:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've recently encountered a spate of personal attacks. Nothing like what some users face, but it's more than I usually have. This is probably my favourite. Not only did he somehow fail to get the picture right (still unsure about what happened there and why it didn't work (and why it blanked text)), he also vandalised one of my userboxen... a userboxen in a hidden space. >.> Vandalism fail? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry 2012 but ill have to disagree with you. Thejadefalcon, let me be the next person to say how good of an editor you are. You are a very good asset to this encyclopedia. However your anger and the way that you showed it on that IP's talk page gets me worried. Admins must be calm at all times. I do think that you can will and already have fixed it. However in an RFA I would still !vote neutral or weak support as it was just a few days age (I would never !vote oppose unless you went on a vandal spree) I must say though that you are very good at keeping cool. (Unlike me. See Talk:Iraq War for further details) Anyway bottom line is you are great and in a few months (March-April-May?) You should be ready for the mop :)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. If I was to be nominated for sysop tomorrow, I'd decline on those grounds alone. Even if I was calm all the time, though, I don't believe I'm ready to be an admin. Maybe by May, but I seriously doubt I'll have the confidence to submit myself to an RfA. However, the compliment is appreciated. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 04:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)0[reply]
  • Well, first thing's first, your edit count shows you have just over 5,300 edits. Which is pretty good for someone who's only been here since exactly the same day as me. Can you believe that? 9 February 2009? We have the same wikibirthday! Anyway...28% of your edits are to articles and 47% are to user talk. That's not beyond reason, as a lot comes from vandal fighting. But maybe some additional article writing would be something to work on. I notice a surge in edits since late October (see Wikichecker stats) which...well, I'm not sure what to say about it, I just thought I'd bring it up. Your edit summary use is practically 100%, recently anyway, so no real issues there. It's good that you're trying to help by adopting new users. Provided you don't make a hash of it all, this'll improve your ability to help people/answer questions, which you'll undoubtedly need as an admin.
You say you'd like to be an admin some day. I think you could be; you seem to have the maturity and the judgement skills (this is just based on my own experience with you). But not just yet. I won't dwell on the incivility incident, everyone has their moments, but you'd get a helluva lot of opposes based on that right now. Try to go into other areas of editing too, a bit of editing variety always helps with RfAs.
But, of course, disregard everything I've said if you feel it's a load of grrschflarbendsrjj or blatant hypocrisy (which much of it is), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the WikiChecker link! I love it! (bookmarks) The huge surge in edits was when I gained a broadband connection of my own and I wasn't limited to library times any more. I'm trying to increase my article edits, but I tend to do most of my bigger jobs in one edit, so the edit count is mildly misleading. And if I was to just disregard every criticism I recieved, I'd be a fairly worthless admin and this editor review would be for naught. I appreciate all comments here (and am genuinely suprised by the amount of feedback I've received). And regarding RfA opposes, no, I wouldn't. One oppose would be enough: mine. Thank you for the review. I appreciate it. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note your comments relating to your present unpreparedness for adminship, and clearly one cannot bring an unwilling horse to the trough. As you are aware, we have interacted, in a wholly positive way, on a significant number of occasions. I would be prepared to nominate you for admin today if you wished. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... seriously? Even with my answer to question two? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seriously. I have never felt that a one-off outburst should be used to judge a whole person. I also suspect (and do not wish to know)that your outburst had a personal motivation behind it. Look at some of my early outpourings some time. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I... thank you. I'll... give it some thought. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm getting a stronger sense of how User:Weakopedia could improve than how User:Thejadefalcon could improve from all this. I suggest strongly that Weakopedia be a little more open to other views and a little less quick to offer extreme characterizations of behavior - "atone for their sins"? "STFU" nothwithstanding, "no tolerance" is always a bad idea, as it never allows for any circumstances or judgment. This is why we have WP:IAR as our oldest rule, which overrides all the others. Its mis-applied by newbies, sure - but read it and think about it. Now, regarding Thejadefalcon; I disagree with Anthony that you're ready for Admin. Sorry, but anyone who made the comment you made on ANI a bit earlier today, and who is ignorant of where Special:Newpages might be, still needs to do a good bit of learning about the site. I suggest you read the WP:AHTG and the WP:ARL in addition to hanging out at ANI. And feel free to pester me on my talk page, if I can be of any assistance I will be happy to do so. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How very unusual.... did admin KillerChihuahua just tell me to Shut The F*** Up? Hardly a civil manner to address anyone on Wikipedia. For the record KC, you comments are entirely out of place. This is TheJadeFalcons editor review. Your incivility is shocking as is you willingness to ignore the basic principles of Wikipedia. Considering that this editor review was requested because of an incident of cursing it is doubly inappropriate to come here and resort to such language, even in it's widely accepted abbreviated form. And as an admin.... well, it is inappropriate to say the very least. And considering the 'advice' you give is to ignore perceived incivility, and that you are here responding to what you perceive as incivility with incivility of your own, I can only suggest that you take your own advice rather than wasting anyones time further. Thanks to TheJadeFalcon for alerting me to this section. Weakopedia (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "STFU" was in the quote which was being criticized by you; which was under discussion. Your pathetic attempt to pretend to "misread" me as saying that, as opposed to discussing that, reveals you as a troll of the first order. I have nothing further to say to you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, my comments were here. First of all, I'm sorry for taking so long to reply. I had to leave shortly after my last comment on AN/I (which is also why it was shorter than I'd have preferred and missed out on responding to the "block on demand" section, which I was planning to discuss on your talk page before I noticed this). Also, because this is related and as by the time I write this, AN/I will likely have moved on to the point where my response would simply clutter up the page, I'll respond here. I wasn't asking for an immediate block, merely for some people do go through his contributions (rather than merely waiting for more edits) and get the diffs of, if not all of them, the most severe. Five years is an incredibly long time to be under attack by anyone and only have warnings for it (his block log only shows vandalism and edit warring as block reasons). However, while I was waiting to be able to type once more (one arm was too busy to type and I don't like typing with only one hand), I had a longer look through Peter Lee's contributions and discovered that it wasn't anywhere near as bad as Mario Roering and my first look at the contributions had lead me to believe as Peter Lee entirely vanished between 19 December 2005 and 30 June 2009. In light of that, I agree that a final warning is the best choice and that a block isn't needed as badly as I thought it might be (though if it had been five years of incessent incivility, I'd think that a block longer than twenty-four hours was long overdue).
    As for my being an admin, I've already said to Anthony.bradbury that I'll "seriously consider" agreeing to an RfA (though sometime in January at the earliest) as "I'll always fail if I never try." However, some part of me still isn't all that comfortable with the idea as, as you say, I still feel like I have a lot to learn, but I was considering letting the community decide on that issue as I can be very lacking in my self-confidence and undervalue myself. I'll read those links you gave me and, if I feel it necessary, ask you if you could coach me for adminship. Thank you for the review. Also, my apologies if I didn't make all that much sense right now. I'm feeling pretty disorientated and my head's spinning a bit for some reason, so if I just gibbered on nonsensically, thinking that it made sense to me, slap me and get me to rewrite or clarify it. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You look very good to me, also I can understand where Anthony.bradbury and the Puppy (I can never spell the chi... word right, sorry), say. If you do want to become an admin, and I encourage you to do so, because we defintely need more of them, you might want to wait the proposed few months. You also might want to consider getting some coaching as per WP:ADCO in the interim, not because I think you really need it, because I don't, but it might give you a better idea of what you would be in for. And given her reputation around here, there are probably few sentient beings who would be better at it than KC above. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I'll take your advice tomorrow (possibly. Busy day tomorrow). --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Thejadefalcon&oldid=1148050049"