Logical2u

Logical2u (talk · contribs) :I've been around since about March 06 (Earlier, if you look at Logical2u2, which is a 2nd account I used for maybe 3 edits), with, maybe, about 1500 edits. It shows 1500 on Wannabe Kate, and 1300 + 200 deleted on "Edit Count", if you're interested.

I basically entered Wikipedia during a "bad" time. Throughout the entirety of my stay I have been primarily a vandal-fighter, though I refuse to say so on my userpage. I participated in what was, essentially, a slow edit/revert war on Moon for sale as some of my first edits. This basically taught me a crash course in Wikipedia editing, from RFCU to AN/I, from ((Subst)) to popups.

Two of my created pages, which may not have survived in today's wiki world (and its abundance of eager taggers), continue to garner the occasional edit, and my 3rd created page was of much better quality than the first two. I have since then used popups to do recent changes patrolling, visited AFC from time to time, checked out New Pages to request speedy deletions (How I've done most of the 200 deleted edits. However, some come from articles).

However, I have also bee consistently avoiding certain areas, particular AFD, simply because most deletions end up being prime examples of the snowball clause. I've been guilty of at least 2 incidents of newbie biting. (Insert Bishizilla Joke here?). I've done my best since then to avoid using my own wordings on various warnings (particularly Copyvios), simply because when it's the 15th such page of randomness you've DB'ed, you end up being quite sharp with the tongue.

At times, I have avoided Wikipedia. This is because, at times, the actions of others, even longstanding community members (Admins, even), continued soapboxing (IE: Admin Abuse essays[Clarification: the long sprawling essays ticked off users post on WP:ANI as "Proof" of the admin's guilt]), and the overuse of bureaucracy in pages like WP:AN have eroded my patience. These, combined with real world stuff, is particularly hard on editors. Wikibreaks are good for the soul at times, as is adding 0 wikipedia.org to your hosts file.

I have my own Subst:nn-warn template, and a series of essays on my views on wikipedia, most of which are OR and not of a NPOV, but hopefully they don't bite the newbies (I still feel bad about that, I really overreacted on those people). I've contributed to WP:FUCK, which is much more NPOV now that more editors are involved.

So, I guess, review me. Anything, anything at all. Contribute to more AFDs, whatever. I'd say treat me as if this was an RFA, but it's not, so be as harsh as you want. I'd say pretend it was, but if I do even decide to run, it'll be later, not sooner. Logical2u_Talk 23:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

• No Portal talk edits at all, most disappointing. Your edit summary usage doesn't end in a "3", that's no good. Don't even think about adminship until you have brought at least seven articles up to B-class standard but no higher. Also, your signature is nowhere near long enough, and your userpage has no divisive or inflammatory userboxes. Your block log is empty, which shows a lack of healthy name-calling in discussion and bold editing of important articles, both of which are crucial. I see no evidence of participating in CfDs, which as any fool will tell you is not only the best indicator of policy knowledge but absolutely essential if you want to spend any time protecting and unprotecting templates. You have never conclusively demonstrated that you are not a sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales and/or one or more members of the Arbitration Committee; obviously that needs to be resolved as quickly as possible. You admit yourself to newbie biting – this is not on; the policy clearly states that newcomers are to be swallowed whole. Your accusations of admin abuse are unacceptable, not because they are incorrect but because the cabal told me to say so. And you use IRC, so anything you do can't be trusted because it's bound to be part of a fake 'consensus' thrown together by those scheming bastards who want to take over Wikipedia. All in all, a promising user but these serious concerns need to be addressed urgently. Thanks – Qxz 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wisdom gleaned: Participate in more articles, something about CfD, and don't use IRC? Logical2u_{Review me!} 23:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; it was a lame attempt at humour. Rather, ignore all of the above unless you want to be an administrator, in which case – judging by recent RfA nominations – the standards are just as high and almost as rediculous. Thanks – Qxz 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by delldot:

• I think Qxz was joking around in the above review, I interpret it as "I see nothing wrong in any of your edits, you're doing a fine job." I largely agree with that assessment. Some points:
• You helped write WP:FUCK? I love that page. Great philosophy, not giving a fuck has gotten me far in life ;)
• Just curious, why the name changes?
• Solid answers to the optional questions. You're right that xfd's aren't votes.
• Looks like there's been a sharp spike in your participation lately. Mwahaha, you're hooked now!
• I see you've been helping out at WP:AFC. Thankyouthankyouthankyou! Help is desperately needed there what with the nasty ugly backlog and thankless work.
• I agree with Qxz that you should not try for adminship yet, but it's certainly a possibility in your future if you want it. Most Rfa !voters look for a higher edit count in various namespaces (not that this is right, but I'm reporting the facts as I see them).
• You say in Q1, "I'm always pleased when an article garners attention, and avoids speedy deletion." Surely the aim should be for none of your articles to be speedied? Have you read and understood the deletion and speedy deletion policies? Have pages you've created recently been deleted? If so, I'd recommend familiarizing yourself with wikipedia's standards for inclusion of articles, and I'd be glad to help with this by answering questions and so on. A thousand pardons if I've misunderstood you here. Looking back on this I probably am misinterpreting you here, feel free to correct me/clarify.
• About this edit, You should not add ((sprotected)) to pages unless they have actually been semi-protected (which only admins can do). (I see that this dif is old, you probably know that now. In fact, from a closer look at your talk page you definitely do understand it, so never mind). I also thought you could have been more gentle with that user, thuough I see you've repented about the newbie biting thing ;)
• I was very impressed by this post. It was very diplomatic, explained your stance well while insisting on good sources. I admired the calm friendly attitude you used. I wasn't as impressed with some of the other posts you made to that page, as I mentined above, but I won't dwell on that since you've mentioned you were sorry about that.
• I was likewise impressed by this post, in which you gently remind a user to be more civil (I didn't see the edit you were talking about, so I can't speak to the substance of the post). I was impressed by how diplomatic you were, plus it's not always easy to approach others when you have a problem with something they did and it looks like you were able to avoid conflict yet stick to your principles.
• I noticed you make some spelling errors in some of your talk posts (which I'm sure I do all the time too) e.g. "alot" for "a lot". So you may want to watch out for that and maybe run spellcheck if you're making big contributions to articles (I didn't look at as many of your article contributions, so I didn't notice any where this was a problem).
• This seemed a little abrupt to me, I'd preface it with some kind of greeting. It's especially nice if you can find something they've done right to compliment them on or thank them for. Not that it was harsh enough to constitute biting IMO.
• Looks like you do good work rv-ing v and appropriately warning folks.

All in all I think you're doing fine work. I didn't get a chance to look at your major article contributions because they were hard to find in amongst all the vandal reverts and other minor edits (usually the case for anyone). But aside from the biting problems you are obviously aware of, I didn't see any civility issues and you seem to be a friendly editor who works well with others. Keep it up! delldot talk 03:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

??? When the reference desk asks for information (Operating system name) so as to help answer a question and the user supplies this information (used as grounds by Logical2u to revert and complain then you know this bot is illogical, unitelligent and goes too far. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.3.92 (talk • contribs).

• Diff for reversion is here.... Clearly I am not a bot, and the somehow added in ten day old templates, which I reverted. I am not aware of removing any data, but that is a consequence of rapid reversions. However, the user's posts are still on the page, not including the ten day old stuff he dragged up. Logical2u_{Review me!} 19:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool. (Note: Contains numerous deleted edits as well)

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   I'm always pleased when an article garners attention, and avoids speedy deletion. In my case, Newton's Wake: A Space Opera, Adiamante, and Melnikov are all very pleasing to me, and their final versions being radically different from my original one is even better. As well, I'm pleased with the various attack pages and nonsense I've removed, simply because it helps keep Wikipedia safe for people to cite. And finally, I'm very pleased with WP:FUCK, simply because it has become, in my opinion, one of the funnier, and more accurate, essays out there since my early contribution. Logical2u_Talk

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?

   I was involved in an edit war, as I mentioned earlier, and two at least two cases of newbie editing. The main users that cause me stress are the ones that start soapboxing on various pages, particularly my own. (Example Here ) I find soapboxing only encourages me to avoid/delete it. Especially when it's done in a sarcastic point of view. I was pleased, however, with the "No diatribes" rule on WP:AN. So far, I've dealt with this sort of stuff through IRC, AIV, prepared templates, and court comments (Which may be in violation WP:BITE). Occasionally I've taken Wikibreaks to avoid stress in the real world. In the future I will avoid using court comments (Simply because I end up ranting), and attempt to avoid multiple edits on things like copyvios. Logical2u_Talk 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Dfrg.msc

1. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

   A: Username violations, continuous vandalism from a username, creation of vandal accounts, or trolling other users that I am not involved with would be the simplest ones. Everything else is not so simple, in the eyes of Wikipedia, and would be better brought up on WP:ANI, talkpages, and AIV. (Example: I found a few non-obvious sockpuppets. Indefinitely blocking them would be out of process until further review had been taken.) ArbCom deals with disputes, and if you're in a dispute, blocking someone is again, out of process, and most, if not all, of the Arb Com members are admins anyways, so they would likely be doing any blocking they order. Logical2u_{Review me!}

2. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?

   A:It's a bit of both, now. Admins are needed to repair more serious vandalism, and prevent it from occurring again, which is technically technical. At times admins appear to be politically appointed, and more involved with political concerns then one would like. Admins should probably be more technical than political, though, as that deals with the aspects of Wikipedia that are impossible for standard users to do, like Page Deletion. The reason there are talk pages is so that everyone can debate the policies, not just admins. Logical2u_{Review me!}

3. What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?

   A: At times I'm frustrated with the backlogs we see, which include the one on Editor Review. I do my best to keep cool, but at this point you realize that if you can't do something, you can't do something, and you just have to be patient. Admins gain more tools that permit rapid response and reaction, which satisfies the need for instant gratification. Logical2u_{Review me!}

4. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

   A: AfDs are notorious like this, huh? But, AfD (or something, might be RfA I'm thinking of), isn't a vote, it's more of a discussion (Exp: CfD = categories for discussion). Before closing I'd review the arguments if there is split consensus. The age of the accounts shouldn't matter (unless they are soliciting support on other forums), as even new users (Which appear to be meatpuppets at times) can have good arguments. Logical2u_{Review me!}

   Non-wordy answer: Keep if the arguments by the new users are sound, and the established users' points are refuted. Delete if the new users simply vote "Keep plz!". About the same for the no-consensus one. Logical2u_{Review me!}