GuildWiki talk:Requests for adminship/JonTheMon

"Thought he was an admin" / Reversion &amp; Alterations Without Comments

 * "Thought he was an admin" is a substantive compliment: my impression is that JtM responds to vandalism, poor copy, style issues, and the like professionally, thoroughly, and rapidly. i.e. exactly as a sysop would/should respond.


 * Reverts &amp; Alterations without comments. I have a strong impression that JtM has a tendency to revert or otherwise noticeably alter contributions with little comment (let alone discussion). This happens rarely enough that it doesn't make me question his unquestionable value as a contributor; it happens just often enough that I would be concerned about JtM as a sysop.
 * Comments (and talk pages) are important so that new contributors aren't left with the impression that GW:BOLD does not apply to them. And, sure, veteran contributors will have developed thick enough skins that they will figure out how to respond (or ignore, or discuss) as needed. Even so, there's rarely a reason not to leave a useful comment for anything more interesting than a copy edit. Is there any among us with an ego so strong that we don't mind having our hard work substantively altered?

The second point has grown in importance to me over the last month or so for two reasons: (1) see Mendel's general comments about the role of admins (made in reference to a different RfA) and (2) the be-bold-as-long-as-it-doesn't-interfere-with-our-ideas attitude I've seen on other wikis. Aristocratically-tilted wikis need not encourage individual contributors (and indeed, perhaps ought to discourage some); truly-consensus-based wikis depend on making contributors feel at home.

I have a very open mind about this RfA; I am likely to change my neutral position based on other comments made in this space. (Particularly those made by User:JonTheMon.)  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 17:48, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to, you can just call me Jon. I don't think there are many other Jons on this wiki, and in context it's pretty obvious.


 * I'll go ahead and explain of the reversion and alteration concerns brought up. For reversions I tend to favor the summary box, so most of the time that means I don't take it to the talk page. I can see why that might not be the best medium (not knowing about edit summary or history), but I feel that in most cases there is enough space to communicate the issue. And actually, I sparingly use the rollback feature because you can't make a comment about the reversion.
 * Now, for alterations I tend to base the level of edit summary more on what was done than why it was done, likely due to assuming people will have more trouble with the changes than why I did it. So, if I change a table to look more in line with our standards I likely won't comment about that. But if I'm removing content (like from a walkthrough) I do try to give a summary. And recently I have been trying to put a little more emphasis on AGF and less on BOLD. Also, I will admit that as I do more reverts in a day/week they typically are a bit more curt.


 * I hope that gives you an idea of why I do what I do. --JonTheMon 19:05, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * I have glanced Jon's last 50 mainspace edits with an eye towards rollback and edits without summary, and I find that the motivation is clear enough to me from the diffs in those that I examined. TEF, it would help if you could link to the diffs of one or three edits that you are particularly dissatisfied with (if you can find them). -- ◄mendel► 19:50, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * So, I think I have to eat my words above for two reasons: (1) I agree with Mendel's evaluation of recent mainspace edits and (2) I am likely to be overly prejudicial because of a series of revisions to my own edits that took place 8 months ago.


 * I perceived the summary of this reversion regarding salvage kits to be unhelpful. It was perhaps my first GW:BOLD edit and I thought I had done something horribly wrong. Jon's response to my query on his talk page didn't help me understand. Instead, it seemed to me to be dismissive of the idea and the effort. Consequently, I'm sure that I pay far more attention to any of Jon's edits that fall just a teeny bit short of perfection.


 * However, at the very worst, that was an old and uncharacteristic event; Jon is better than the average 2000-edit contributor in explaining changes and reverts. Upon consultation with the record and my conscience:


 * I withdraw my opposing point as invalid.
 * I apologize to Jon for overly weighting a single example, especially to the point of making a point and especially so publicly.
 * &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:38, October 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh. I held a grudge for the longest time against the editor who reverted one of my first edits with no reason I could accept or even understand, and discussion just went nowhere (that person is no longer active here). -- ◄mendel► 22:34, October 8, 2009 (UTC)