HG

HG (talk · contribs) In recent months, I've worked on several contested articles and I'd especially appreciate feedback on these efforts. In particular, I've put (too) much time into facilitation and restructuring efforts with Allegations of Israeli apartheid and related articles. In addition, I've tried to help move forward a few other contested situations and have begun contributing to AfD and RfC discussions. In regular editing, I've created and helped write some articles, though I haven't contributed to any high quality (GA/FA) articles. My user page has relevant links. Your input would be welcome. HG | Talk 03:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Hello, HG. You're one of the folks involved in the "apartheid" mess? I pity you. But I suppose my aversion to conflict is not shared by everyone else on Wikipedia (hence the fact that there are still conflicts). If you want a little laugh, take a look at Wikipedia:Allegations of allegations of apartheid apartheid.

I admire your article work. Like you, I am shomer Shabbat, and since you edited Kyle Snyder's article, I suppose you might also be a Red Sox fan. I looked at your original version of Michael Broyde, and compared it to what I happened to edit two weeks ago. Not bad for a start, and it's improved since then.

I looked at your comments at Talk:Legal status of Hawaii. It seemed that your comments helped stabilize the situation and move toward a revision of the article. You may be concerned about whether your participation in such discussions is helping or not helping. I'd say it's helping. I don't think you need to worry about the fact that not everyone is going to agree with you all the time.

I wish you good luck. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I would like to add my own comments to HG's editor review. I would just like to say that i find HG to one of the more constructive positive editors at Wikipedia. I also find him to be extremely skillful and helpful in meditation. thanks.--Steve, Sm8900 19:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Steve said. <eleland/talkedits> 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Editor_review/HG" Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    It looks like Allegations of Israeli apartheid might actually improve, eventually. In any case, hopefully I've helped folks move in a constructive direction. I've also filled some gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of Judaism and ethics. In addition, I try to do something practical about disputes. For instance, I created a few articles about Biblical verses and, more recently, tried to make constructive use of deleted content from "Psychiatric abuse".
  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?
    In trying to play a facilitation-type role at Talk:Legal status of Hawaii, I recently annoyed a key editor on that article. We discussed my style and she gave me some feedback, which hopefully will help me in the future. Similarly, I've tried to be useful at the more contentious Talk:Battle of Jenin. I found it somewhat stressful working with various folks there, including PalestineRemembered, with whom I've had a fairly good rapport (which has cooled off a bit since we discussed mentoring). In some cases, I've found editors -- on both sides of a conflict -- asking me to be tougher and more enforcement-oriented (e.g. here and here). In general, I do wonder whether folks appreciate or resent my recent facilitation efforts and how I could be more effective.
(Yes, you're invited. Commented on PR's talk.) HG | Talk 22:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your mainspace edit count looks very low at the moment; if I'm reading it correctly, you're just under 600.
  • I noticed that you've been involved in editing some volatile articles on the Middle East conflicts. These articles have attracted both good, constructive editors as well as disruptive POV-pushing. It would help if you can build a short, easy-to-follow case showing the community that you're open-minded and willing to work with good-faith editors on both sides of the issue.

Cheers, Majoreditor 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Majoreditor about ME-pages, but I'd take it a step further and say the two "types" of editors are mixed up in each other; there are very few pure types. Good, constructive editors find the atmosphere so polarized, the editing so strategic, and their efforts so consistently foiled that their own behavior, in time, comes to resemble that of the POV-pushers. And who knows, many of the most flagrant POV-pushers may have begun as good editors. I would say HG is unparalleled as a mediator on those pages; he never trades in strawmen or red herrings, and he takes the assumption of good faith to a new level, able to find the kernel of a viable argument even when it's been breaded and deep-fried in bombast, and he is politely unimpressed with wikilawyering from either side. He has been a crucial presence at Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Battle of Jenin, and several other red-hot pages, and still no one knows what the hell his political views are – a great credit to him. Now, this may have something to do with his low of activity in the mainspace; but if so, I say keep it up, because he's been an invaluable presence on Wikipedia, as one of the only editors able to bring progress to gridlocked pages.--G-Dett 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More