Ksy92003

Ksy92003 (talk · contribs) I would like to self-nominate myself for an RfA in the near future. I'm putting it off for now because I'm trying to repair my image, which I feel has been greatly damaged because of User:Chrisjnelson, a problematic user who conflicts, which has made it more difficult to edit in the past couple months. I'd like to go through Editor Review to know what I'd have to do to prepare for an RfA. Ksy92003(talk) 23:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Review by Wknight94

The disputes between Chris and I have gone on for quite some time. The first time we ever made contact was on June 24, 2007. I was looking through a page on my watchlist (Talk:Reggie Jackson) and saw that both he and Yankees10 (talk · contribs) had made personal attacks, so I intervened. Up until the conclusion of the Chris/Jmfangio Arbcom case, the relationship between us has been topsy-turvy; sometimes we get along, and sometimes we don't. Most of the time, I had agreed with him and sided with him on many matters. I honestly don't know what happened that caused the relationship between us to go astray, but alas, it did.
For Jaranda, I got to know about this user when Soxrock (talk · contribs) contacted me about him and was against several of the season articles. Because this was something that I quite enjoyed working on, I took of

fense to it. I don't remember why I did it, but I was looking at his contributions, and eventually I got blocked. At the time, I didn't realize that what I was doing was wrong, and to this day I still believe the block was unfair; I hadn't continued my action after I was warned, and therefore, didn't believe a block was warranted. After an apology, Jaranda unblocked me, and we haven't really contacted since, except in one AfD Deletion Review case; I've let go of any resentment I had towards him as a result of his opposition to the articles I've worked hard on.

For Pats1 and the recent developments, I personally didn't see any reason why Pats1 needed to remove the comment from his talk page after I had already responded to it. I believed that there was a policy that supported what I was doing, but actually mixed it up with another, which was pointed out to me by Sasha Callahan (talk · contribs). When I realized that I really shouldn't have been doing what I thought was allowable, I stopped immediately and apologized on my talk page. For Jaranda and Pats1, I thought that what I was doing was allowable, but I wouldn't have done what I did had I known that I shouldn't have.
Sometimes, when I get involved in this disputes, I take it a bit too far out of frustration. Sometimes, I don't know when to stop, but usually, I do. Like the Pats1 thing today, I stopped immediately when I realized that I was wrong. I try not to provoke Chris, but when I'm in discussions with him, I always keep my language civil and refrain from making personal attacks; I don't believe I've ever made a personal attack on anybody.
But I understand that to have any sort of realistic shot at a future RFA, I'll have to somehow avoid getting into any of these sorts of conflicts. But as a first step in doing so, I'd like to repeat that I've always remained civil and haven't made a single personal attack. Although the discussions usually turn up incivil and attack-centric on the other side of the discussions, I've always tried to keep a level head. Sometimes, I get provoked by comments made my the other users, but I always have tried to keep as cool, calm, and collected as possible, and I think that is a great sign and a big step into a possible RfA. Ksy92003(talk) 04:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree 100% that you maintain civility and do not engage in personal attacks. (Otherwise, I probably wouldn't bother commenting here.) And I'm not saying that you should avoid conflicts. The problem is that conflicts are going on too long. Before my RFA, my worst conflict was related to an AFD and it was over in a few days. I'd have to look up who it was with, I took their talk page off my watchlist, the article survived AFD and I took that off my watchlist, and I have never corresponded with the person in the nearly two years since. You need to do the same with Chrisjnelson. Take his talk page off your watchlist, don't look at his contribs, don't check whether he violated his ArbCom conditions, and if you happen to edit the same articles, then go elsewhere (Wikipedia is enormous and you can always find another article that needs help). If you feel the need to mention a certain individual in your own Editor Review, then something is wrong. When disputes run past a few days into weeks and even months, other people will turn incivil even if you don't. While you'll come out unblocked, people at WP:ANI or WP:AE will take notice of the repetition - "Oh, it's yet another Ksy vs. Chrisjnelson conflict - sheesh". In conflicts that go on for uncomfortable lengths of time, no one comes out looking good. After you become an admin, you'll have to make tougher decisions and people will come at you in far greater quantities. If you get too frustrated over small discussions before RFA, then the legion of trolls and newbies and single-purpose-accounts after RFA will drive you out of your mind. Take a look at CAT:ABL and CAT:CSD, etc., and you'll see that there's no time to engage everyone in every agenda they have. Make your point, listen to the response, and recognize when you're talking to someone whose mind is not going to change. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, that makes a lot of sense. I'll try to follow that advice, and I'll try to keep as far away from him as possible, if I can. Since Chris is blocked for a week, hopefully I can use the next five days to re-develop the editing patterns I used over the summer. The fact that I get into conflicts with Chris too easily is probably the one major point that's gonna turn up at RfA, so I know that I'm gonna have to end that to have a legitimate shot. We'll see what happens when he returns, and hopefully he'll (I don't mean to make this sound rude) vanish from my life so I could return to the way I was back before these conflicts began. Ksy92003(talk) 13:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind me adding a review for you here, Ksy? Pats1 T/C 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional comments. 1.) Your talk page is still almost illegible. Some at RFA will actually leave negatives for such things (and maybe only downshift to neutral when you fix it). 2.) This comment should have been reduced to "No, I don't mind." Dramatic wordy monologues trigger bullies. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll modify the color shortly, when I find one I'd rather use. As for the comment I left Pats1, I don't believe that he took that in any sort of negative fashion in this case, but I understand your point. Ksy92003(talk) 04:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by B

  • Pats1: I don't have a problem with you saying anything you want to say, and I'm not sure I can prevent it anyway. I understand that you may say some things bad about me here, but that's alright with me here; that's the reason why I opened this.
  • B: I'll start doing the "minor edit" marking, first of all. Didn't really think much of it, but for some bizarre reason [that not even I know] I didn't like marking edits as minor. But sure, I'll do that. Secondly, I'm going to try my absolute hardest to keep myself dedicated to ignoring Chris in any way possible. I believe that the current block on Chris, which is set to expire (correct me if I'm wrong) either Monday or Tuesday, should give me just about enough time to do this. I feel that these conflicts with Chris would be the one thing which would prevent me from a successful RfA, and to have the best possible shot at that, I know I'll need to try to ignore that from now on. Ksy92003(talk) 22:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Pats1

OK, so here we go. Ksy, the first time I can remember crossing paths with you on Wikipedia was a few months ago, most likely via Chris. Since then we've obviously gotten to know each other pretty well. And while we've had our share of disagreements, it's great to see an editor with such a passion to the subjects he edits on Wikipedia. Now, a few years ago, I would have never thought to myself that Chris was a really good guy to interact with. Today, I realize how wrong I was. Chris, just like you and I, is a very passionate editor. But, as Ben Franklin once said, "If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." That is, both you and Chris have butted heads because of passion and there have been times you both have ignored reason (and sanity) and things got out of hand. Why? Well, I think it's because A) There are times when you take Wikipedia too seriously and B) There are times when Chris doesn't take it seriously enough. In the latter case, I'm referring to times when Chris realizes he's free to say anything he wants on here without any repercussions outside of this website, and then says something stupid just for the hell of it. This is Chris, and whether it's a good or bad trait it up for debate. However, when Chris does this, it often plays up to the fact that you sometimes take Wikipedia far too seriously. Pats1 T/C 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought for a long time that the source of our conflicts is our passion and intent to improve Wikipedia. I believe the same to be true for Chris, as well. Ksy92003(talk) 05:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do keep that in mind. Pats1 T/C 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take that instance when Chris was talking to you privately about Jmfangio and you then went to Jmfangio with what Chris (negatively) said about him. Looking back on this, I hope you realize that nothing good (in terms of bettering Wikipedia) could have come out of this. This is one case where you took the relationships "fostered" at Wikipedia too seriously, as if they were actual person-to-person interactions. I sit back here sometimes and watch what is nothing more than a glorified soap opera erupt between the two of you simply because Chris is carefree and you tend to be more uptight. Again, I'm not saying one is better than the others. But when the two come together, it isn't a pretty scene, as we certainly know. Don't let Chris' personality bother you and overreact to some things Chris says or does. I think you have made it fairly clear (through both your talk page notes and your intro to this review) that you have allowed Chris to bother you and that you would be happier if Chris were blocked from Wikipedia. The longer you carry this attitude around, the longer it's going to negatively affect everything that goes on between you two. Because if you go into a situation where there is a conflict with Chris, you know that Chris has certain restrictions placed on what he can do. And if you try to steer things in that direction and Chris takes the bait, it's probably going to end up with another block for Chris, your "goal" (don't tell me you're saddened and depressed when Chris is blocked). Pats1 T/C 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "saddened" when Chris is blocked if I believe that he deserves a block. For example, recently, he was involved in a revert war with another user. I, who was looking at that page as well, sided with Chris on that argument, and made a revert of my own. However, I didn't realize that I had forgotten to log in, so my IP address was recorded in the history. Chris was blocked while I was at school because the blocking user assumed that Chris was the IP address. To be honest, if the IP address weren't me, and I knew that, I would probably assume it was him, also. A checkuser confirmed that it was not Chris, and he was unblocked. I went to the blocking user and the unblocking user and told them that I was the one who accidentally made it seem that Chris had violated WP:3RR. Neither responded to me, but I was trying to prove Chris' innocence. If I can clearly see that Chris was wrongfully blocked, especially if it was because of an act of stupidity on my part, and this goes for everybody, not just Chris, then I will defend him. Although me trying to defend Chris in this instance was pointless as Chris was already unblocked before I returned to Wikipedia, I did make the attempt to clear up the misunderstanding with the two anons who dealt with the situation.
For the record, when I did that, I can 100% truthfully say that I wasn't trying to get Chris in any trouble, and it absolutely shocked me when I saw that I did something stupid (or simply forgot to do something) that resulted in a block on Chris, and I am regretful of that. It didn't appear that the block really did much for Chris anyway, as the block only lasted for a very short period of time, but that was a very minor issue, and Chris didn't ever even say anything to me about it. Ksy92003(talk) 05:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Pats1 T/C 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that's missing here is mutual respect and understanding. If, say, Chris reverts one your edits (which is perfectly fine under Wikipedian guidelines, it's just the first sign of a disagreement), immediately take it to the talk page, and don't revert it. You know that Chris is limited to 1 revert per week, so reverting it back just gets Chris frustrated and is going to start off the discussion on a sour note. And when you enter that discussion, no matter how awkward it seems, act like you and Chris have no history together and you're just trying to settle a dispute like you would with any other editor ("Why hello John Wilkes, that's a fine suit you're wearing today." "Why thanks, Abe, I am particularly fond of your tophat today."). Going into it with contempt or reopening past wounds ("You've always been a liar Chris") does not accomplish anything. Take the latest situation on Talk:Michael Vick for example. It's obvious just from reading it that both of you are very passionate about your sides of the issue. The tone on both sides, however, is still rather one of strain and "here we go again" attitudes. In this case, just chill out and tone it down. If you do so and Chris still is barking at you, then that's his fault, but don't let it bother you, no matter what. If Chris tells you that he keeps asking you a question or explaining something and to him you're not understanding it (as had happened on Vick and the Harrison suspension deal), ask Chris (or anyone else) what you're not understanding, and don't start getting defensive and keep slamming your head into the wall. Stop. Think. Tylenol. Ask a calm question. "Chris, I'm not exactly understanding what you are saying. Could you please explain it further.?" Again, if Chris responds with "Why not you idiot?" (which I can't recall him ever doing), don't let it bother you, that's his fault. Pats1 T/C 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told about this several times on this page, and have admitted that I haven't been going about these types of situations in the best possible manner. I have vowed to make every possible attempt to correct these actions, and hopefully, this shouldn't be a problem. If Chris and I do get into any conflicts, then I will try to discuss it on the article's talk page. Ksy92003(talk) 05:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Pats1 T/C 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely where the discussion went downhill. Everything from "First of all" to "(sysop intervenes)" is a perfect microcosm of what usually goes on between you too. You start getting into "can't wait to report him for incivility" mode (i.e. taking things far too seriously and escalating, rather than cooling a conflict), while Chris you're going to do this and doesn't care much (i.e. taking things not seriously enough). Just keep in mind that ever time you report Chris to ArbCom enforcement or Durova or another admin, it's only escalating the conflict between you two and not helping things in any capacity. So if I had made the mistake of acting defensively to Chris telling you he's asked the same question multiple times without an answer, I would have then just dropped the thing and not have reported it. This is when you take things to seriously and feel the "obligation" to report Chris for insignificant and borderline PA's like that. Another thing I noticed from that discussion is how you said "X and Y agree with me and nobody does with you" near the end. Even if it was true, just don't do that. Really. Because if there were actually a consensus, there wouldn't be any need for a discussion to still be taking place (other than to take needless jabs at each other). The editor who "lost" what essentially amounts to a straw vote (especially when it's 2-to-1 or small numbers like that) will feel insulted and will probably get mad at the fact that you're double-talking. That is, you say the other editor has no support in order to put him or her down, but you're still continuing the discussion as if legitimate points remained unresolved. Pats1 T/C 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I was waiting to report him for doing anything wrong. It's when I felt that he's incivil to me in discussions with me that I felt compelled to report him. I'm not going out of my way to report other users, but much like when Durova blocked Chris recently, she said that she couldn't ignore something that was on her userpage. Similarly, if I felt that Chris was behaving incivilly towards me, then I would've been influenced to report it, as I felt that I was the victim. It's really hard to ignore something like that. But again, similar to my last response to the above paragraph, if I am able to maintain my distance from Chris, or even if I'm able to avoid getting into these huge conflicts, then this shouldn't be a problem. Ksy92003(talk) 05:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Pats1 T/C 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you would be to remove your "Note 1" and make a good-faith strikeout to your comment about Chris in your intro to this review. This is your first test. Your second test is forthcoming, I just haven't told you what it is yet. Pats1 T/C 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted that comment. Now, before you say that it should still be changed more, I'm going to say that I'm not referring to Chris in that statement. I'm referring to something that happened at school today which has made me feel rather depressed. I don't want to say that there because I don't want to get too specific. But that has nothing to do with Chris, even though it reads like that. If I can figure out a better way to say that without actually saying what happened or how I feel in a bad mood, then I'll adjust it right away. Ksy92003(talk) 05:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, good. Pats1 T/C 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Wow, that's a rather long comment. Would you mind at all if I make separate edits to respond to each paragraph separately? I don't want to do it all in one major edit. I don't like making edits that are too big {show +6,000 in my watchlist). Ksy92003(talk) 00:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah, that's fine, I do that all the time. I'll add my sig to each piece so it will be clear. Pats1 T/C 00:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Okay. Thanks. I can't do it now, but I'll do them when I get back on Wikipedia, which may be in two-four hours. Ksy92003(talk) 00:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Now that we've gotten those points taken care of, any other comments? Ksy92003(talk) 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You passed your second test. Pats1 T/C 23:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I passed my second test? I don't even remember what my first test was :) Ksy92003(talk) 23:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Soxrock

Well, hi friend. I just want to chime in on your editor review. You are a top editor to Wikipedia, that is a given. However, and this is because of my history class, what we've learned lately, I compare you as the Puritan and Chris as the Native American, and I'm Squanto (feel free to choose different sides if you so care). Stuck in the middle of this dispute, simply because I am friends with both of you guys. I want this to stop, and I'm sure both you and Chris agree.

My idea to help solve this dispute: Ksy, you need to get a bit tougher. Chris is a "tell it like it is" kind of person, as far as I can tell from our e-mail conversations, and he has attacked your toughness at times. I agree to some extent. I think some things offend you too easily. You need to learn to let some things go. If Chris makes a personal attack, no need to the attentions of User:Wknight94 or User:Durova or User:B or me. Now, that changes if it's nonstop, but just a personal attack, a single one, let it go. People here violate WP:CIVILITY all the time. I'm no model Wikipedian myself. But when Chris and I had our disputes in June and July, if he attacked me, I let it go. You do the same. No need to get a good, sometimes hot-headed, editor blocked. Also, reduce the warnings due to his restrictions. I understand you want to be one (and may well be one come February), but let the administrators handle any of Chris' violations. No need for you to act like his parent and tell him what he can and cannot do. Look at the list of administrators I mentioned up in the paragraph. Let them handle it, they all seem familiar with Chris and his actions. As for Chris, it's a bit more short and sweet; he simply needs to calm down. He is passionate about his editing, but he does have a tendency to cross the line. Just be yourself and not concern yourself with Chris, Ok? All your disputes with Chris have been all avoidable and oh so meaningless. And getting back to what I said in my 2nd sentence; I hate feeling like Squanto between the Puritans and Native Americans. You guys can get along, I know you can. Just give it a try, and if it doesn't work here on Wikipedia, you'll both be getting e-mails by me. I want this over with. Ok? Thanks SoxrockTalk/Edits 00:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, when Chris returns on Tuesday, he would've learned something during this block, and hopefully, incivility won't be a problem for him. As for me, yeah I'm gonna work on trying to keep my distance from him, and if I'm able to do that, then there won't be any issues. If the block expires and the conflicts still continue, then WP:CEM could be a reasonable path to follow. But again, with the way that I plan to edit on Wikipedia in the next couple days (maybe not today, gotta go see my high school football team get their butts kicked by their rival again) then I'll hopefully diverge from the articles that Chris usually edits. Sometimes it's hard to willingly change habits such as which articles to edit, so I can't guarantee that would be a short time before I can, but every effort will be made on my part. Ksy92003(talk) 13:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Sasha Callahan

First of all, the revert at the Panthers' roster template was accidental. It wasn't that I didn't check my facts first. It's that when I saw the other user re-add the name, after Chris accidentally removed it, I assumed that it should've been added to the IR list. I looked it up, and saw that I was wrong, after I was reverted, and there was a discussion on my talk page in which I admitted my mistake. The only thing I probably did wrong was use my default edit summary.
Secondly, I removed the reference on my talk page (it still might read like I'm saying it's Chris' fault for my "bad mood" but really, it's something that happened at school yesterday that made me somewhat depressed) and changed the note here.
Thirdly, again, I'm gonna work on this in the next couple days, and hopefully, there shouldn't be any too severe conflicts. I hope that Chris is reading this page and knows of my intent to be calm with him. Ksy92003(talk) 13:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see that you two are working together for a compromise in your talk page. Good work. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 16:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jj137

I'm not even sure that I know you :) I remember we contacted once or twice, but I can't remember exactly. Anyway, thanks for the compliments, and thanks for not saying anything about me and Chris. I don't want to have to answer questions about that for a sixth time :) Ksy92003(talk) 13:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    From July 25–August 24, I created articles for 103 baseball players. I took two of them (Ramón Peña and Félix Torres), as well as another article which I greatly expanded (Héctor López), to DYK and all were successful. For the record, its pure coincidence that all three of those players' names have accent marks in them. I also was the one who began creating articles for individual MLB baseball seasons; although there were some for other sports, I was the first one to start doing them regularly for MLB. I substantially expanded 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season when I was able to do it (I stopped midway through the season to take up other projects). I also worked greatly on the other 2007 season articles; if you look at my edit count, you'll see that of the 15 mainspace articles I've edited the most, 9 of them are the 2007 articles. Additionally, all of my top 15 template edits have been related to the 2007 articles.
  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 the past, I have been in several disputes with several disruptive users. Usually, these conflicts have been the result of other users not completely understanding policies, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and blatantly violating them to try to get their way. In these cases, the users whom I was engaged in these conflicts with were blocked as a result of their actions. In the future, I plan to try to implement the steps of dispute resolution as best as possible to resolve conflicts while trying to prevent the opposing parties from resorting to personal attacks and incivility. Additionally, in the many conflicts that I've been involved with, I've never once made any personal attacks to any other user. Any remark that is even close to a personal attack would've been made in response to an incivil remark made towards me, which I've received a lot of due to opposing opinions.
More