Wikipedia:Editor review/Ionas68224
Jonas D. Rand (talk · contribs) Hello, I'd like some criticism and I want to know what I should be doing more of and less of, what I need to tone down or work on. Feedback is appreciated. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Reviews
- I'm sorry to say this, but you honestly aren't a fan of mine. You've bit me, attacked me and been very disruptive. Your article contributions may be useful, but I suggest avoid talk pages altogether. It has only led to problems. Not to come off really mean, but this has been my impression of you in the last few months. -- American Eagle (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- While I have to agree with most of what American Eagle has said above, I believe you do help the community through discussion sometimes. I've seen a few instances from where you helped us. Though, I think you should work more in the mainspace. The article you say you are proud of is basically a stub. Well, try expanding it further, and even try promoting it to WP:GA, or even WP:VGA! The only mainspace edits I really see are minor typo fixing and some other minor edits. We're here to write articles anyway. That's the real deal here at Wikipedia. Maybe working on articles will help you not cause trouble around the wiki, which I'm sorry to say has happened a few times by you previously. Also, try to use edit summaries more often. If you tend to forget to add an edit summary, go to your preferences --> Editing and checkmark "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" and activate it there. Take care, – RyanCross (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Your user page, combined with several of your edits on this project, display a startling lack of maturity. Your user page is little more than an attack spot against anyone who may have slighted you in the past, and does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. I'd suggest you work on toning down your attitude and passive-aggressive behavior to others. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to see examples of this immature way of editing, and don't be foolish and link to the diff for this edit, like another user here did. It is not an "attack spot", it shows the hypocrisy that goes on here, when NPA is thrown around, but some people who make ad hominems are not even warned.
- I am also unfamiliar with the meaning of "passivity-aggressivity" as far as its psychological definition. That is a field in which I am very inexperienced and not knowledgable about. So please, Swatjester, what is its definition and where do I display this behavior? — Jonas · talk 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please refer to users by the names they go under here, not their real names or names they use on ohter websites. alexandra (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- He's already given examples of your immature behaviour. "Your user page". If you file an Editor Review, try reading the comments made. --Gwib -(talk)- 05:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see that as immature, but if some sentimental wiki-policeman who is offended by the hurtful, damaging truth that hurts their hearts tells me to take it down, and threatens a block, then I'll take it down. — Jonas · talk 05:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- If you can't see the immaturity of the statements on this very page as an example of why you're editing behavior is unacceptable, I have no idea what to do with you. On your own editor review, you've used my real name rather than my screen name, accused me of being a "sentimental wiki-policeman who is offended by the hurtful damaging truth that hurts their hearts", accused me of being foolish, etc. That's just on this page alone. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see that as immature, but if some sentimental wiki-policeman who is offended by the hurtful, damaging truth that hurts their hearts tells me to take it down, and threatens a block, then I'll take it down. — Jonas · talk 05:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- He's already given examples of your immature behaviour. "Your user page". If you file an Editor Review, try reading the comments made. --Gwib -(talk)- 05:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I never called you a sentimental Wiki-Policeman. You didn't order me to take it down. You also showed your inability to understand who I was referring to. I was saying "if some sentimental wiki-policeman who is offended by the hurtful, damaging truth that hurts their heart tells me to take it down", referring to whoever tells me to take it down. I was being sarcastic with the overusage of sensitive adjectives. Now unless you're headed down that road, there is no reason for you to get offended by this term. And I'm still waiting for your psychological definition, Dr. Jester. — Jonas · talk 17:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Enough of this. Editor Review, not Debate about Tactics and name-calling. Apologies for contributing to this, but any more off-topic edits (including editor in question) will result in protection. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- 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 am most proud of my contributions on the Iranian coup d'etat (1953) article.
- 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?
- Creol has been rude to me over the past year and I usually leave him alone, and anything I am doing, no matter how it seems, is not to bait Creol. When I asked about spelling problems, he returned with a snide remark, typical for him, and it may seem like baiting. But it wasn't my intent. I will continue to usually leave him to his own devices, unless this gets personal. I have also been concerned about the behavior of Archer7 (talk · contribs) towards and regarding me, which I perceive as bordering on obsession and sort of creepy. As far as edit wars go, I haven't been involved in any that I can name off-hand.
- Jonas, this section was supposed to be about the conflicts you've been in, not the behavior of others. -- American Eagle (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- It could be argued that these conflicts have caused him stress, though Jonas did not elaborate on how he has dealt with that stress, really more so in Archer's case. alexandra (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, I usually just leave them alone. Why is your signature now "alexandra"? --Jonas
- Cassandra from Greek mytholgoy was also known as Alexandra. alexandra (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, I usually just leave them alone. Why is your signature now "alexandra"? --Jonas
- It could be argued that these conflicts have caused him stress, though Jonas did not elaborate on how he has dealt with that stress, really more so in Archer's case. alexandra (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Jonas, this section was supposed to be about the conflicts you've been in, not the behavior of others. -- American Eagle (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Creol has been rude to me over the past year and I usually leave him alone, and anything I am doing, no matter how it seems, is not to bait Creol. When I asked about spelling problems, he returned with a snide remark, typical for him, and it may seem like baiting. But it wasn't my intent. I will continue to usually leave him to his own devices, unless this gets personal. I have also been concerned about the behavior of Archer7 (talk · contribs) towards and regarding me, which I perceive as bordering on obsession and sort of creepy. As far as edit wars go, I haven't been involved in any that I can name off-hand.
Archer7's big explanation that probably needs it's own little section
OK, I guess I'd better clear this whole thing up by explaining my classification system for rulebreakers on Wikipedia. Each person is assigned a number along a scale between 1 and 10. The labels by each of them show you what I'd do to them if I met them in real life.
| Level | My reaction |
|---|---|
| Level 1 | "Hey there! I know you from Wikipedia! I'm Archer7, how are you?" |
| Level 2 | "Hey there! You've created a load of socks this week haven't you? Wiki-hug!" *hug* |
| Level 3 | "ROFL! It's you! You want a beer?" |
| Level 4 | "Hey, how's it going? Have fun with your block!" |
| Level 5 | "Hey, didn't expect to see you here! Anyway, don't worry about before, I've been through the same thing myself. Ignore the psychiatrist, once the recurring haemorrhoids have been treated you won't want to email that sort of stuff to anyone." |
| Level 6 | "Hey! What are the chances of us both being in this shop at the same time? Well I guess I am a regular! Anyway mate, seriously, about what's happened over the last 6 years, keep those pics to yourself, there's a reason this place is called a 'private shop'." |
| Level 7 | Ignore them unless they stop me, then get rid of them with excuse about having to go and collect herpes medication. |
| Level 8 | Walk past quickly with face covered. |
| Level 9 | Call police. |
| Level 10 | Defecate in lunchbox. |
Ionas, you are a Level 2 and I don't see you moving from there in the near future. No-one I have ever dealt with has ever managed to get past Level 4, and I've seen some pretty shocking people. I really don't hold anything against you, but when I think something is wrong, I will say it, like I do for anyone else. Archer7 - talk 08:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I know you don't mean any harm, it's just the way you sometimes behave, when it seems you haven't been active in a while, it's like you just come back to post a long, informative explanation of my behavior. It has crossed my mind that you have a list of things "about Ionas" on your computer or on a physical list. You seem fascinated with me, and in my mind, it creeps me out a little. But since you're on the other side of the world, I don't think you will harm me, as you would have to go out of the way to find my address, save up money to fly, and then get your parents to fly to Las Vegas, and go to my house, which seems a little complicated for something on Wikipedia. --Jonas
- I'll stick my response in here, as it is more apt here. This sort of thing sums you up. I don't like using these words, but you assume bad faith. Basically what you have said above, is that you are worried that Archer7 is trying to gather information about you. What makes you think that? Has he ever given you any inclination that they are looking for you? It seems to me that you have said that to cast a certain amount of doubt over Archer7's intentions on Wikipedia. For these reasons, and ones I have given you before re the emailing of information, I just plain don't like you. Call me bad, say I have assumed bad faith. Sorry but its my thoughts, and you haven't done anything for me to change my mind. In fact, that reply above has helped cement the way of how I think of you. I think that you are out to drag up mistakes and throw them in administrators faces. Your userpage highlights the facts I have given above. Kennedy (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I check my watchlist several times a day and just generally see what's happening, even when I'm not editing. I am one of the people that knows you best - when you turn up and do something that's wrong, I will say so. I am an admin that has dealt with you right from when you first came here, and I like to think that means I can handle things a bit better. So yes, when I see you around I do comment about whatever's going on, but it doesn't mean I'm stalking you. Archer7 - talk 21:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll stick my response in here, as it is more apt here. This sort of thing sums you up. I don't like using these words, but you assume bad faith. Basically what you have said above, is that you are worried that Archer7 is trying to gather information about you. What makes you think that? Has he ever given you any inclination that they are looking for you? It seems to me that you have said that to cast a certain amount of doubt over Archer7's intentions on Wikipedia. For these reasons, and ones I have given you before re the emailing of information, I just plain don't like you. Call me bad, say I have assumed bad faith. Sorry but its my thoughts, and you haven't done anything for me to change my mind. In fact, that reply above has helped cement the way of how I think of you. I think that you are out to drag up mistakes and throw them in administrators faces. Your userpage highlights the facts I have given above. Kennedy (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
What I'm talking about is when Archer7 finds socks so well, and it doesn't seem that others suspect that it's me (Nobodyhome – ChristianMan16 and Microchip08 thought that it was Benniguy). It seems that he has some kind of program that tracks me and identifies my writing style. How is it that you can identify my writing style?
Kennedy: I sometimes get paranoid, and an incident in my past perpetrated by a SEW administrator may have sparked it. I am afraid that someone will notify my school staff, and then I will be in trouble for certain things. This especially might happen if a name I used only for a specific unfavorable site where I have said unfavorable things is connected with my real name, which has been done before excessively by a troll from that website (although to my knowledge, no school staff have been notified about this). I assume bad faith many's the time, and I am informed that it needs to change, and that I need to work on that. I am skeptical a lot, especially when anonymous administrators can pretty much do what they want, including get me in trouble in real life. Such is the risk of being a dissident and critic who reveals their real name on a website filled with people who have the ability to remain completely anonymous and have no standards to which they are held accountable.
As far as your concerns raised in the e-mail thread, you said that something worried you. The something was a link to when Gwib said I had trouble with administrators. I do not. In the past, I have been immature when criticizing certain administrators, on and off wikipedia, but I regret and retract the immature comments. I still am critical of some admins, but Gwib was completely incorrerct in thinking that I don't like administrators. The vocation of Wiki-Police-Officer is not what bothers me, but when those people are exempt from the rules of Wikipedia, it is quite troubling. My userpage is merely illustrating this double standard in the inner structure of Wikipedia. And, for your information, Archer7 is a man. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hope I'm not spilling beans here, but Archer has posted his real name (a now-defunct personal website), two other administrators use initials and their first or last part of their real name in their usernames. That's already 10% of the administrators here, lol. alexandra (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant "who have the ability to remain anonymous". I have revised it. By the way, how did you know that "Chenzw" meant "Chen Z. W." I do not know this for a fact, and I am curious as to how you found out, unless you meant someone else. The only one I can think of other than Tdxiang is possibly Chenzw. — Jonas · talk 01:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- diff link to the original comment I replied to, for reference. As for Chenzw, he mentioned it a few months back that Chen was his surname. alexandra (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ionas, the reason why I spot these socks is because I've been doing this for quite a while. I spot things in writing style, usernames, activity times, everything, it's just how my mind works. Your writing style (particularly the way you form sentences) is very distinctive, I can spot it instantly. The admins that have been around here for a while know that I can get a good image of someone's psychology from small behaviours (I reckon they all just find it annoying now). When people make up a story for us, most of the time there's little things that they forget to change, or they contradict themselves over tiny details. Other things like the subjects of articles they edit and the types of edits they make, the way their usernames are formed, the times that they do things, they're all giveaways. There's so many other small things that you can pick up on that tell you something's wrong. To create a sockpuppet that has no resemblance to yourself is almost impossible, there's always something small. Archer7 - talk 09:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- diff link to the original comment I replied to, for reference. As for Chenzw, he mentioned it a few months back that Chen was his surname. alexandra (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant "who have the ability to remain anonymous". I have revised it. By the way, how did you know that "Chenzw" meant "Chen Z. W." I do not know this for a fact, and I am curious as to how you found out, unless you meant someone else. The only one I can think of other than Tdxiang is possibly Chenzw. — Jonas · talk 01:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)