Wikipedia:Editor review/Cerejota

Cerejota

Cerejota (talk · contribs · count) Well, I have been here for a long time, done a bit of editing, etc. I have, for some reason, always been attracted to controversial/current event topics as an editor, while as a reader I tend to be more attracted to science/milhist stuff. Since that time of editing can lead to a lot of drama, I would like to see evaluations from people that don't have a beef - often times even good criticism is ignored depending on the source, after we are not robots (that we know of!) Cerejota (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   Current events tend to be the focus of my article work, and perhaps the most visible in this sense is

   WikiProject Puerto Rico

   .

3. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   Hell yeah, some epic arbcom-level stuff too - inevitable if you are editing in ARBPIA. Never been sanctioned/blocked for those - of my two blocks, one was for edit warring (with tags! I really think the admin misjudged that one) and another was quickly reversed because it was essentially a hilarious - in retrospect - misunderstanding. I try to be frank and open, and also separate the behavior from the content issues and deal with those in the appropriate fora. I think I have gotten better with age, but I have not always been successful. I do have a hard time dealing with bad faith, real or perceived, and most of my DR is geared towards seeking a third-party view. I can and often accept criticism (why would I be here otherwise!) but also react negatively to what I consider patronizing or bad faith criticism, so tips on how to handle that would be awesome.

Reviews

• in response to "tips on how to handle (what I consider patronizing or bad faith criticism) would be awesome" here are my suggestions.... and disclaimer, I don't know your edit history well enough to comment.... the following is just abstract tips for anybody per your request .... Always assume its possible there's an ambiguity in the text that makes sense one way to you and makes equally good faith in a completely different way to someone else. Don't shoot back. When others try to make it personal work very hard to avoid saying "you" and instead say "I" and "me" and stick to the subject matter. If someone else is in good faith but not in control of their emotions, or alternatively is in bad faith in control but faking an emotiona response (hard to know), just say to yourself "all the other editors are forming a negative opinion of this person, and that's the best possible sanction". Then you don't have to get hot yourself. Hope something there helps. When all else fails, find the scene in Executive Orders where VP Jackson tells Pres Jack Ryan to yell at staff, not the troops. Even if it lesson doesn't ring your bell it'll get your mind off of "stuff". Another good tactic is to neutrally rephrase the other party's position, even if you don't agree with it. Once you can so clearly state what they are trying to say that they confirm your understanding, most of the time (A) they will cool off unless they are really OCD or in bad faith, and (B) you'll likely find basis for some sort of misunderstanding. 'cheerio
  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I haven't done a review of your work, but I thought that I would say "thank you" here for the help you have given at
  WP:BLPN. I think that your comments in response to my question were helpful and clueful, so thank you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Having made the comment above, I've started paying more attention to your work when our paths cross. I'd like to make a suggestion based on what I see at the WP:V discussions. I think you are a very smart editor, and I tend to agree with a lot of what you say. But I do think that you tend to be kind of pushy and bossy towards those who disagree with you. In the past 24 hours or so, I've seen you tell some other users there that they are heading towards being blocked or similar. As to what they are heading towards, you are probably right (in my opinion), but it ends up backfiring on you when you actually come right out and say so. Better to be less confrontational, no matter what is going through your mind. If you decide to pursue RfA someday, this is the kind of thing that is sure to come back and bite you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I've already voiced my concerns regarding your unsubstantiated charges of wikistalking against Damiens, which you've made in multiple fora[1][2]. In these discussions you acted with considerable malice toward Damiens, and inflamed an already difficult situation. Note specifically comments of uninvolved editors William Connelley, Figureofnine and Atama in the last discussion. Atama's two comments in the second diff are especially on-point. While I've tended to agree with you on matters of substance in articles we've mutually edited (climate change) I think that your contributions are marred by combativeness and tendentiousness, and that you need to heed the warnings by these three editors and not make flip and irresponsible accusations against other editors. I think that Atama's comments concerning your accusations of wikihounding are especially pertinent to your behavior, and that you should read, understand, and act upon his valuable guidance. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC) To be fair, to amend my previous comment, the vast bulk of Cerejota's contributions have been constructive, and he is a valued user. He does need to exercise more moderation in dealing with the editor mentioned above, who seems to stick in his craw. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The editor's work on the
  Vietnamese Trotskyism article previously mentioned.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Another update: User:Cerejota's development seems more like a character from science fiction, progressing from infant to child to promising adolescent (not above a bit of horseplay) to a mature editor in a matter of weeks. This development has been amazing, and I wish that Cerejeta maintains enthusiasm for the project and continues to edit with integrity and with consideration of even poorly expressed criticism, if further development is possible. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Congratulations for having the courage to invite feedback. Let's get the sticky bit out of the way first; a while ago, I thought a couple of times that you reprimanded another editor at Talk:2011 England riots needlessly and speechified too much over an issue that didn't warrant it ([3][4]). However, it was an isolated thing. For the most part I've valued your clear thinking and well thought out contributions to discussions (for example: [5][6][7][8] ). I also liked your willingness to take constructive action over an individual who has really created hell for everyone; thank you for your recent efforts regarding the difficult situation there. If you can just stay at your crisp and succinct best, and try always to give people the benefit of the doubt, then you'll be doing fine. Rubywine . talk 04:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I came across this which suggests to me that you don't understand what a revert is - the editor was removing content, but this seemed legitimate. Most importantly, they did not revert anything. To clarify a revert would have occurred if another editor had replaced the content they removed and then they had removed it again - at that stage they would have been at one revert, even though they had removed the content twice. Whilst the other editor was not exactly being collegiate, you could have certainly tried to be more friendly in your dealings with them, particularly as they pointed out you were in the wrong about what constitutes a revert (I also noticed that other editors also seem to have got confused by what a revert is). The SPI you launched on the editor seemed a bit confrontational to me and in combination with other things drove a very productive new editor away from the project. From the above, it looks as if you do a lot of good around here and maybe you were just having a bad time for a few days in the middle of August. SmartSE (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed that you placed a prod tag on
  Sherry Wolf (artist) without a reason. I believe that you should give some kind of reason, even a simple one like "not notable". Anyway I have restored this article, so you can consider the prod has been challenged. However the other prods you did succeed in having deleted looked fine to me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]