Wikipedia

User:Doncram/Other

< User:Doncram
  • 0. Blocks
  • a. Contribute to improving documentation or otherwise aiding editors, where i notice it is possible/needed.
  • b. Constructive, influential participation in AFDs
  • c. total edits (including deleted): 123,407 as of 2/27/2015, of which 64 percent were in mainspace, per supercount tool (applied to me)
  • d. total articles created, per X! edit counter report as of 2/27/2015: 16,592 pages in mainspace, of which 7,242 are redirects, and 34 were deleted. So approx 8,800 mainspace articles (not including redirects). Of which about 3 were deleted against my wishes, i.e. .00xx percent.

Blocks: Block log for me includes:

  • 27 May 2014 block for 24 hours, potw also blocked, potw at 4 reverts, me not
  • 10 June 2011 courcelles block for edit warring at Charles M. Robinson (history) article i created, where SOV followed and reached 4 reversions, and where SOV was unreasonable at Talk, and for edit warring at Marion M. Steen (history), SOV also at 4 reversions, i opened & posted 2x at Talk, SOV only replies once snidely, I got blocked 21 days, SOV got _ ?
  • 20 December 2011 Jayron32 blocked 1 week ("Personal attacks or harassment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doncram&diff=prev&oldid=466718228
  • 2 August 2011 Elen of the Roads blocked 3 months (wp:Disruptive editing: See https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=442673888#Doncram.2C_1_August_2011. That is per Nyttend-opened ANI discussion, linking to others, basically all unfair, untruthfully saying I had called E a liar, when I have never done so. I said I had not done so, and asked for diffs. For that I am blocked, essentially. There _was_ sentiment for E, and what it was really about i think was me calling E on threat to take down generator, saying go ahead. E was thin-skinned about being informed the generator was generating some erroneous info, and that I had understood him to have put two incorrect assertions into articles (one about CCC being architect on a Ranger station article, which E acknowledged was incorrect, and by NRHP nom now should show was incorrect (?) ; other was about a MN article and a year of construction date). E had threatened to take down generator before...in fact i was motivated in NRHP list-article completion drive to avoid effect. E was incorrect however in saying I ever called him a liar. Nyttend was incorrect in ANI saying that I had. Was I, in fact, a little bit _disrespectful_, relative to kid-gloves treatment of E that others would have preferred? I dunno, it seems legit for me to speak up in wt:NRHP section to defend self, and... I don't know if Elen of Roads' close was incorrect, it perhaps reflected sentiment. But sentiment was wrong; my statements were not answered; it was a bad call imho.
  • 14:49, 17 May 2011 Ironholds (talk | contribs) blocked Doncram (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Edit warring) relates to what?
  • 17:53, 22 April 2011 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) unblocked Doncram (talk | contribs) (close enough to a week)
  • 21:11, 15 April 2011 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Doncram (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Personal attacks or harassment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonesborough,_Tennessee&diff=prev&oldid=424263283)
  • 13:31, 13 October 2010 Rd232 (talk | contribs) unblocked Doncram (talk | contribs) (Previous block made in error) Oh?
  • 20:18, 11 October 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Doncram (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Disruptive editing: On Sons of Haiti, Grand Lodge of Idaho, and elsewhere) Masonic editor, involved.
  • 05:22, 8 September 2010 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) blocked Doncram (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Edit warring: Per WP:AN3#User:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) (Result: Both 48h))
  • 22:22, 9 August 2010 Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) blocked Doncram (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of the three-revert rule: on Devon Bridge) Polaron and CT __.

In EW blocks, big issue is counting of reverts when a content editor (me) has created an article, and another editor right away removes content and repeats. That other editor's removal has to be understood as a first revert. And same if other editor arrives 2 days later, and makes removal, though not as clear to 3RR admin participants. It has to be understood that way, however, else gives power to following/destroying/stalking/bullying editor, IMHO. Am I really not correct in my view? Need to RfC or something?

And delight in boomerang on me bringing EW? Unfair application, e.g. about O going to 4 reverts.

General usage

WikiProject NRHP (identify from supercount tool applied to me, with parameter 100 for top articles to list)

  • FAQ and style guide, for nrhp wikiproject, with extensive detailed instructions for accessing a few difficult-to-use state interfaces. some/all moved to "resources". developed up to what point mainly by me? what other doc merged in?
  • wp:NHL info issues
  • wp:NRHP info issues, very important for rationalizing experience

AFD participation Tend towards inclusionist side, perhaps, but not at all so much as the tally of my Keep votes might suggest. I gravitate to AFDs where notability is Keep or unclear, and try to make a difference often by finding good resources or constructing good arguments, so most my votes will be Keep. I usually don't participate if my quick triage review of an AFD makes me think the article is not likely salvageable.

Often influential and constructive in AFDs, setting or changing apparent course of an AFD and/or cited by other voters, sometimes working to alternative outcomes like redirecting an article to a new list that I create. Examples:

And involvement in AFDs leads to other good developments: e.g. in last one, identified need for a List of academic journals edited by students (redlink now 2/2015, but on my To Do list) and identified additions (done) to Category:Academic journals edited by students

Other

edit

Naming of ANI incidents, see User:Doncram/SectionHeaders

Naming of arbitration cases

Emerging thoughts/principles for 3rr wp:Ew? wp:EW?

  • 3RRnb should come to a judgment of fault/blame, separately from result(s) imposed, to be useful in further DR. In later DR, one should not have to go back to the 3RR incident and argue about who was at fault, it should be determined. And 3RR review is needed, like deletion review, to get it right, to impose judgment/cost on a closer and to ensure learning if a closer gets it wrong, and to be more fair/legitimate. Blocks are imposed and the rules of blocks are that you must confess, when sometimes/often the judgment is actually wrong (Catch22 of that covered where? Not byk's, but some other's list, whose???) Or the block or length of block is unfair/disproportionate. Even if block has been imposed and is over, it's necessary to allow review of what happened, to get confirmation or overturning of fault/blame assigned, to ensure learning, and for fairness get an update note to the block log if there's significant change.

Emerging thoughts/principles for ANI?

  • Being neutral, not using loaded terms that carry judgment in the title itself (see User:Doncram/SectionHeaders)
  • Being specific enough in naming behavior types to draw the admins/other editors who are interested/knowledgeable about that behavior? This is like categorizing news articles usefully to facilitate news readers' newsfeed choices.
  • My strong view is that ANI incidents should not be expanded, should be defined fully in first post with only small amendment allowed later. With the definition of problem clear enough that all parties named, so relative fault blame can be assigned in percentages to one or more, and with outcomes for each of them. If another issue is to be raised, it should be another ANI thread (imposing appropriate cost of initiating, upon whoever is going to raise it, and risk boomerang or back-firing or reputation loss. Admins should come to an answer of blame and outcome on each issue, really can only do that for one item in a thread, I think. Structure it more like 3RRnb, in effect.
  • Being specific to naming one or two or three users, valid when ... ?

Should user names or article names in titles be links? I sort of think it would be better not to link in the title, but rather give links in the first sentence. One reason is that it's unclear how to refer elsewhere to a section title that has a link in it. Another is that it may tend to channel arriving participants to the linked article, rather than having them read the hopefully well-presented discussion so far, first.

  • [[User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts|byk thots page]. Advises content-editors to keep your head down and walk away from any conflict...i don't think that's enough...i think content-editors need to be responsible for a bit more, for helping a bit in maintaining a decent environment, by speaking up occasionally (how often? where? when called upon in a systematic way?). Byk follows or does not follow own advice? interesting it was byk following me on 1st action above. Could there be a standard defined: if you see X (bad thing), then do Y (minimal, one-time response). Where the one-time response is a note of objection there in the discussion, that is not interrupting/disruptive to the discussion itself, but is something. Or where the one-time response is a points-hit? If coded in a certain way, the note of objections could be tallied by giver and by receiver of the note, by an analysis tool like wp:editorinteractionanalyzer, and would build up a useful record.

Like tit-for-tat strategy, which is powerful in many settings involving repeated interactions.

  • List out the types of negativity, & seek collaboration to address them one by one (per my post at wp:WER?).
    • ANI titles that are attacks
    • ANI incidents that are expanded
    • ANI calls for boomerang, or to dredge through any and all history, other delighting in being unfair
    • ANI inappropriate remarks that are not disavowed, e.g. "it's okay to personalize"
    • 3RR cases that do not identify fault, or that identify fault incorrectly/unfairly
    • AFD calls for wp:TNT
    • PRODs or AFDs on new editor's first contributed article, instead of discussion possibly leading to move to Draft space and AFC process. Per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnolia Bread Company.
    • Any negative tagging that precedes a Welcome message at any new editor's Talk page.
    • Anything else wp:BITEY
    • Notes, anywhere, of apparent bullying, or of apparent hypocrisy.
    • Notes, anywhere, of being repetitive/tendentious, or of writing too much (where "tl;dr" used in practice now, but is really rather rude).
    • Notes anywhere of insulting by dismissing, not reading (e.g. any usage of "tl;dr")
    • Notes anywhere of admin not answering a question, conduct unbecoming. Admins need to take on teaching role seriously. If someone is really asking a question, wants to understand, it's important to answer or see that it gets answered by someone. Newbies and experienced editors both, are trying to figure out how the Wikipedia system works or is supposed to work, when guidelines are unclear and may be different than practice.
    • Replies to unblock requests that do not answer questions, especially
  • Consider like crime-reducing broken windows tactics, focusing on the visible small crimes, making all crimes less acceptable, changing the environment.
  • Or consider like measurement, and people managing according to what is measured. Are counts of "like" notes measurable for givers and for receivers...i think they are, how see now, they could be more visible later given tools. There also needs to be a counting of negatives possible, too. Maybe not to be presented all alone, maybe only with a presentation of positives, e.g. a count of edits (contributions), or contributions in Talk areas starting from date a system like this starts up.

wp:Editor Interaction Analyzer feature/bug/glitch note: Hi Sigma. Thanks so much for having created the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool. It is really really helpful sometimes. I came to inquire whether there is some date cutoff on the edits of two editors that will be compared, e.g. only during the last 2 years or what. I wondered about that because a report that I knew generated a lot of interactions between 2 editors no longer does. However, I tried searching in your Talk archives and found [this inquiry from editor Shrike, where it turned out putting in a start date made a big difference in results (from nothing to the results of this example call to the Editor Interaction Analyzer. You acknowledged maybe there is some kind of bug. That workaround works like a charm for me...putting in 20090101 or 20060101 as a starting date yields a ton more interactions i was looking for, than if no starting date is entered. I have no complaints, am happy, not calling for you to do anything, it's working for me with that trick. Call it a bug or call it a feature of the program.... Again, thanks so much. cheers, --doncram 03:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Doncram/Other&oldid=1074231749"