Wikipedia:Editor review/Just H 4

Just H (talk · contribs) Hello all, I was just wondering if I was ready to be an admin and if i'm doing a good job or what have you.Just H 18:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

• Your recent edits to the Kansai-ben article and it's talk page hint of a serious lack of maturity, as well as of poor knowledge of Wikipedia rules, specifically WP:ATT. Instead of realising your edits were maybe not very well thought through (and terribly sourced), you decided it was an "edit war" when your edits were reverted, and I think it's fair to say that you are now currently bordering on breaking WP:POINT. Also, without even trying to resolve the "conflict" peacefully, you took it to the Admin's incident board immediately. Your comments there once again display your lack of understanding policies ([1]). Finally, you called another user (me) a dick, after making a fuss about how this user was incivil. No, you are definately miles away from being ready to become an admin. Specifically, you need to read up on WP:ATT and you have alot to learn about conflict resolving.
  • Note This unsignatured comment is from the person who disagreed with me. Just H^{editor review} 00:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, forgot to sign. And yes, it's from the person who disagreed with you, I never stated otherwise, and also, that does not make my comments any less valid. Mackan 09:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope. Never said they were less valid. Just wanted to clarify for others reading this review. Just H^{editor review} 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Solely on the basis of this comment, no, you're not ready to be an admin. That verged on a personal attack, was a clear violation of assume good faith, and in general shows lack of judgement (someone asking for an editor review publically attacking whom?!?). Essjay lost all the powers this project has, and is apparently quitting; that Wales did his best to avoid adding insult to injury is only commendable. (He may revoke the quitting, but he can't get the bits back.) Demanding that he also be publically criticised is beyond the pale. Then there's this edit which shows you simply do not understand WP:NPOV and WP:AUTO, one of which is fundamental to the project. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 04:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Is that why Jimbo broke WP:AUTO dozens of times? Perhaps he's not ready for added privledges either, like I stated on his talk page. Just H^{editor review} 04:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, if he were asking if he were ready for admin, I wouldn't support him either. :-). But he's not. You asked if you are ready. You're not.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 04:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's funny, I don't ever remember him having to go through an RFA. Then again, it's good to be the king :-)Just H^{editor review} 04:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly suggest you refactor your comment at Jimbo's talk page. It's precisely the kind of bitter and heated statement that tells the community you're not ready for adminship. Durova^Charge! 04:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, WP:AGF, even with Jimbo. Prodego ^talk 04:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advice followed, comment mellowed down. However, I am still incredibly disappointed in him, I cannot AGF when I cannot have the "A" in there. Every Wikipedian should be treated as valued contributors, everyone. And I will offer constructive but firm criticism to anyone, including Jimbo, do doesn't act this way. Just H^{editor review} 04:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Insulting Jimbo Wales is not a good way to prove you can be a good admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you think that admins should be rubber stamps for Jimbo? Just H^{editor review} 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, no. I do not like having Jimbo being the dictator of it all. However, I will work with the system before I fight it. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you know a way I can work with the system without the system just paying lip service, please let me know. Just H^{editor review} 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, I do not. I am not an admin and I do not really know any tricks to this. I just meant to say that since Jimbo has dictatoral powers on Wikipedia, it is not particularly smart to make him mad. I know what I just said is ridiculously submissive, but those are my thoughts on the matter. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to let you know, I agree with your comment that is being discussed. However, Wikipedia is not a place to use fiery language. It tends to get you nowhere except banned from Wikipedia and allowing your arguement to fail. In real life, fiery language can be effective in arguing, but at Wikipedia (as I said before) it does no good. Rephrasing the comment might make it more effective. Captain panda In vino veritas 05:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Thank you, however, what classifies as "fiery" and what doesn't? If I can know the line, i'd be glad to stay away from it while still expressing my feelings. Just H^{editor review} 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is fiery language. Calling Jimbo Wales "detremental to the project" and accusing him of "neopotism" is fiery language. In Wikipedia, I have learned that using arguement techniques like that only get you messages on your talk page saying you have violated WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Believe me, I've tryed things like that too. It got me nowhere. Just pointing that out. Also, be prepared to discuss that comment on your RfA. Someone is very likely to find it and it will likely affect votes if it is found. Just letting you know. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's just it -- WHY is it "fiery" to speak my opinion or call a spade a spade? People who suck up to Jimbo do not recieve the same punishments those who don't do, and that is detrimental to the project: it makes people act not for the best interests of the project, but for the best interests of one person within the project. If there is some way I can work for equality for all without being "fiery"(whatever that seems to mean, it seems to vary with person to person on here), please let me know, i'd be your biggest supporter. Just H^{editor review} 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I am trying to say is that it's not what you say; it's how you say it. It is fine to tell Jimbo he has not dealt with Essjay correctly. What is not fine is to user vocabulary that is unneccesary to state your point and is insulting to the user in question. Just rewording the statement would have prevented this. That is what I am trying to say. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• View this user's edit count on the talk page.

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   My personal project is Members of the 110th United States Congress, about 300 edits there. With some referencing, further data on the delegates and other little things, I think it can be featured. Just H 18:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. 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?

   Yes, it was a few weeks ago. I disagreed on how some policies were stated, another editor(can't remember who it was now, i'd have to check) said it went against what had been agreed upon, and even though it was not evident where such edits had been agreed upon, I upheld my strict personal policy of not edit warring and let it be. Just H 18:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]