Wikipedia:Editor review/IRWolfie-

IRWolfie-

IRWolfie- (talk · contribs · count) I've been most active on wikipedia for about the last 2 years (actually on wikipedia 6 years +) with most of my nearly 12,000 edits in that time. So I'm curious as to what other editors think (mostly in response to the suggestion here User_talk:IRWolfie-/Archive_5#Admin material). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Small addition 00:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked FTN regulars to give feedback as that would seem to make sense as they are the most relevant peers. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My primary contributions have been to WP:FTN and related articles that have featured or been mentioned there.Oddly enough, before editing wikipedia I had no previous experience in this topic area, but became curious after seeing the massive issues in this area. I have been fairly active at WP:ANI and sometimes at WP:WQA and a good amount at AfD. I particularly enjoyed working on astrology, improving the artice section the scientific appraisal from [3] to [4]. When I edit, I tend to prefer to remove cruft to reveal the gold, and to make slow well sourced additions. Adding material that I know to be true to articles seems less than desirable if it isn't sourced.

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.

   As an FTN regular I'm experienced with editing highly disputed topics and topics which have POV pushers present. The systems of wikipedia are generally good in the long term and if there is a determined POV pusher (civil POV pushers are a serious problem here, and many have carved out walled gardens for themselves) the system deals with it in the long run as long as there is the will to deal with it. Most wikipedians recognise problem editors but few wish to subject themselves to dealing with them, and avoid editing in that topic area.

It is critically important to maintain civility, a reference to WP:CGTW is important here: "If you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get muddy. And the pig will enjoy it." Sometimes editors will try to get a reaction from you and it's best to disappoint. I always maintain civility; though I wouldn't say this should be enforced harshly if it is to a net detriment to the encyclopedia.

I generally forget editor names when I've had a small negative encounter and avoid making anything personal at all times; I generally forgot most editors after specific negative encounters (I don't know how people have the memory to hold grudges), although I tend to remember the good interactions if they stick in my head :). It is important to recognise that at times an editor who may be uncivil against you may at times support your position in another encounter; interactions should be based on the issues, not who is proposing or not etc. In some disputes editors believe I hold some sort of grudge (I think this is a common technique to try and make things personal and to deflect issues); holding grudges appears to be nothing other than childish and best avoided. Wikipedia is not personal; building an encyclopedia of knowledge is not about grudges but about improving the encyclopedia, that is the end goal.

As a slight tangent on disputes; one issue I have found hard to have dealt with easily is WP:COMPETENCE; some editors just aren't competent, and it's hard to know what to do with these editors as you can't report them to ANI if they are just incapable of editing productively but essentially harmless.

Reviews

• I unfortunately do not have enough time now for a comprehensive review, just wanted to remark that you are, in my observation, the driving force of FTN, and your activity there is pretty much unproblematic and helps to build an encyclopaedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• The harshest measure of an editor's behavior frequently revolves around how he/she behaves during a disagreement. IRWolfie- and I recently found ourselves coming at an issue from different perspectives. Throughout our discussion, he/she remained polite, diplomatic and effective in conveying his/her point of view. Well done. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am going to have to disagree here. I am currently in a dispute with IRWolfie and have been at all points treated derisively and disrespectfully and as if I were some form of troll. Admittedly, the disagreement revolves around a controversial topic but his/her aggressive and unilateral edits are not a solution. I believe him/her to be an intelligent and possibly thoughtful person but this is not the shape of the argument we are having. Digitalican (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

For context for others: User_talk:IRWolfie-#My_Account and [5]. The article is Christian Science, which I have been trying to improve. Digitalican has been using primary sources as he believes the secondary sources are biased, that only experts can edit the article, and that wikipedians can not decide what is a reliable source [6][7] [8]; I have been trying to explain wikipedia policies about OR, RS, FRINGE, NPOV etc. I did not believe him to be a troll, and I noted on his talkpage that I believed his intention was to edit neutrally [9]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm generally impressed with the usual levelheadedness that I see from IRWolfie. If they're going to hang around in admin areas, or at least be strongly critical (in some cases) on admins and/or their actions, they should enable e-mail - create a Wikipedia-only account on Hotmail or something. Like a wolf, Wolfie does sometimes grab on a little too tightly to something, sometimes without reviewing the policies around them (see WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:SOCK#NOTIFY as perfect examples in a recent discussion). Because of either non-review, or perhaps a misunderstanding of certain policies, they may accidentally escalate situations, as opposed to de-escalating them. I have not taken a deep dive into their article work, but from what I see, it's a net-positive to the project. That said, if this is a pre-RFA, I'd say "not yet" ... closer, but not yet. Remember, those that want the power probably shouldn't have it :-) dangerouspanda 11:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Which example where you thinking of with WP:SOCK? I never thought your alternative account was a sock, or even misuse [10], just unclear [11]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

But your comments about that confusion were possibly based on a misunderstanding about WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, but if I remember correctly, you continued to suggest it needed changing even after being advised otherwise. WP:SOCK as a whole is vital understanding for editors, but even moreso for potential admins (obviously some of our current ones don't get the whole policy either) dangerouspanda 10:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I said it needed to be changed, but that it should since it was confusing (I was initially confused with it and it took me a while to find your actual account). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah. But all you needed to do was click ;-) The exact same discussion had already occurred...there's no issues :-) dangerouspanda 12:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• All my interactions with IRWolfie have given me the impression that he is a sane and reasonable editor. He has a lot more patience with fringe theory-pushing cranks and nutters than I do; his work on WP:FTN is extremely important to ensuring Wikipedia remains a trustworthy and useful resource for people interested in actually ending up with something vaguely factual when they look up scientific topics. He needs to get a mop in his hand now. WP:RFA is that way. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, :) IRWolfie- (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• You're very brave to do this. I've found working with you very productive and useful. I see you as one of the group of editors who are most clued up about sourcing in the natural/exact sciences. Sometimes people who are into that then find it difficult to work on humanities or social science topics ("Where are your experiments?" "Can you prove that?"). But you're not like that, which is refreshing. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Working in the fringe-theory stuff is tough. As fast as you nail down one article to something approaching a rational, mainstream perspective, some other set of crazy ideas will pop up in some new article. Each new area that needs attention comes with it's own little cluster of fanatics who don't understand Wikipedia's policies and will be aggrieved that their (fringe) POV isn't what the article says or that they can't "own" the article because they are an expert in the field. It's a great place to train for adminship - you see every kind of policy violation every single day - and you wind up wondering if you should program hot-keys that say WP:FRINGE/WP:NPOV/WP:RS/WP:MEDRS/WP:NOTE/WP:COI/WP:NPA, etc. IRWolfie navigates those situations like a swan - grace and poise above the waterline - but paddling like crazy beneath. I can't think of a better person to become an admin. SteveBaker (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Review by SlimVirgin

• Hi IRWolfie, I'm not familiar with your work, so this is just an observation based on one brief interaction. I was concerned to see you say that psychoanalysis is a fringe idea, [12] and I was wondering if you could expand on your thinking about that. Psychoanalytic ideas are taught in universities, psychoanalysis is widely practiced by psychiatrists, and it's often the dominant psychotherapeutic approach in teaching hospitals. For a discussion about its current status, see for example this article by Robert Michels, Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College and a Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst at the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research. Your calling it "fringe" made me wonder whether you're casting that net too widely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It's highly controversial and the basis of classical psychoanalysis has shaky foundations which modern psychoanalysis was built on. Not sure of the relevance of what is taught in universities. Universities are happy to teach Anthroposophical medicine and Homeopathy and other pseudoscience subjects. The effectiveness of the psychotherapy approach as it now stands doesn't necessarily deal with the validity of the underlying theories; the different psychotherapy approaches are about as effective as each other even though they may have very different underlying theories. I would be interested to see what the majority of Psychologists thought. As far as I can see, it is fringe as it is not the mainstream IRWolfie- (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Extended discussion

No matter what a Google search suggests, psychoanalysis is widely taught and practiced, including in medical schools (see Kaplan and Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry (2007), which describes it as one of the fundamental disciplines within psychiatry), so it isn't something that would be governed by WP:FRINGE. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry but no. This is Nature and Science saying it is out of the mainstream, the two top journals in science, not just a random google search. Subjects which are popular amongst the general public but not mainstream in the respective discipline (Psychology) are still governed by fringe. Even though it's a popular belief, so is creationism. The undergraduate textbook in Psychology that I have (edition from 2003) also states it's controversial and that it's no more effective than other approaches. As an aside, the evidence of its efficacy compared to other methods is not convincing, I note for example this Cochrane review: IRWolfie- (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Okay, this isn't the place to discuss psychoanalysis, but it is the place to discuss your placing your entire faith in an undergraduate psychology textbook while ignoring a textbook for psychiatry residents. That doesn't make much sense. Also, I can't see in the psychology textbook where it says psychoanalysis is controversial. Do you have a page number? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry but you are again ignoring the Science (journal) paper and Nature (journal) editorial about the subject, and other references. I'll get the book page number if you wish: pg13 mentions how Freud's ideas are controversial but that they have heavily influenced psychologists, pg18 explains how that they Freud's original theories aren't as popular as they once were, but they still appear in other theories. These sources are perfectly reliable for showing that Psychoanalysis is not in the mainstream anymore. I have no doubt practising psychiatrists use the techniques, but I also know psychiatrists who use religious based techniques as well so excuse me if I'm a little skeptical of the consistency in quality of psychiatrists. Effectively the ideas of Psychoanalysis have fallen out of Psychology but are still maintained somewhat in psychiatry, but again, falling out of the mainstream over time, and efficacy certainly not proven as in the case of Schizophrenia above. If you are a psychoanalytic psychiatrist, sorry, but that is just the way things are. I didn't look at Science and Nature etc specifically looking for Psychoanalysis not being mainstream, but this is what I found when looking for its status. Coincidentally: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Psychoanalysis_query. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Hi, apologies for the delay in replying. I've had a chance to look through Psychology (Bernstein et al), but I can't find where it calls psychoanalysis "controversial." Can you quote the sentence you have in mind? I can see where it says: "Freud's ideas are by no means universally accepted. Still, he was a groundbreaker whose theories have had a significant influence on psychology and many other fields" (p. 15); "[a]lmost all forms of psychotherapy incorporate some of [Freud's] ideas" (p. 653); and "contemporary variants on classical psychoanalysis have helped the psychodynamic approach retain its influence among mental health professionals" (p. 656). As for your other sources, the Nature editorial calls it "out of fashion," but the same editorial criticizes clinical psychology too. Even if it were true that psychoanalysis is out of fashion, that wouldn't by itself make it a fringe idea within the meaning of WP:FRINGE. The Science article you referenced, you quoted only partially. The article begins by saying that psychoanalysis is "far from the mainstream in modern mental health care" (without specifying which country it's referring to; perhaps the U.S.), but the very next sentence says: "But it's alive and well in France – and it just got a shot in the arm from health minister Philippe Douste-Blazy to the consternation of many scientists." WP:FRINGE says: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." Within the field of psychiatry, psychoanalysis remains influential. Kaplan and Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry, a standard psychiatry textbook, writes that psychoanalysis "has established itself as one of the fundamental disciplines within psychiatry" (2007 edition, p. 190). It continues: The science of psychoanalysis is the bedrock of psychodynamic understanding and forms the fundamental theoretical frame of reference for a variety of forms of therapeutic intervention, embracing not only psychoanalyis itself but also various forms of psychoanalytically oriented psychodynamic concepts. Likewise, current efforts are being directed to connecting psychoanalytic understandings of human behavior and emotional experience with emerging findings of neuroscientific research. Given the role of psychoanalysis within psychiatry, Wikipedians ought not to be advising new editors that it's a fringe subject. It's true that it's less popular (perhaps not popular at all) within psychology, but that's a separate issue from calling it fringe. I'd appreciate it if you could quote that sentence from the psychology textbook so I can take a look at it. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC) I'll get you the exact quote (I gave the page number above). You are picking and choosing what papers you wish to address. Science (journal) "Freudian psychoanalysis is far from the mainstream in modern mental health care." That complies with "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field". Would you recommend Psychoanalytic Psychiatry for Schizophrenia? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC) If you're asking whether psychoanalytic psychotherapy is appropriate for someone with schizophrenia, I'm not a physician so I don't know. But no treatment is appropriate for all conditions so I'm not sure what your point is. The point I'm making is simply that something that is regarded as one of the fundamental disciplines within psychiatry is not a fringe subject within the meaning of our guideline. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Ask for clarification at WP:FTN or wikiproject medicine if you wish. (I notice you didn't address my first statement, but rather my side question). Just because it's subject to WP:FRINGE doesn't mean we try and debunk it, merely that due weight to the mainstream position must be given. I can point to respectable minority physics interpretations that are fringe but still respectable. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, could I ask you again to post the whole quotation from the psychology textbook? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, pg13: "Freud developed his idea into a body of work known as psychoanalysis, which included a theory of personality and mental order, as well as a set of treatment methods. Freud's ideas were (and still are) controversial, but they have had an undeniable influence on the thinking of many psychologists around the world." IRWolfie- (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As an interesting aside see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable_science. There is nothing new to what I'm saying. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Incidental comment: the efficacy of psychoanalysis in the treatment of schizophrenia is not a valid measurement of whether it is fringe (it was rarely used for such in any case). By the same logic CBT could be termed fringe [13] which it certainly is not at the moment. I'm not addressing the other points as I realise that WP:Fringe is a pretty Wikipedia specific policy and probably necessary (and who's really going to argue for a scientific basis to the Freudian unconscious, etc) but I do find the categorisation of what has been one of the influential intellectual movements of the twentieth century, both within disciplines such as psychology and in the wider culture, as fringe very odd and somehow inappropriate.FiachraByrne (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I moved your comment out of the collapse box. I'm not saying it's fringe due to a lack of efficacy, but due to the most reliable sources describing it as no longer being in the mainstream, or having moved away from the mainstream in terms of modern psychology. If the most reliable sources describe it as no longer being in the mainstream, then that casts doubts on the reliability of the Psychoanalysis publications being used for statements of fact (not opinion) since they no longer represent the view of the scientific consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I was principally responding to your query to Slimvirgin of whether he would "recommend Psychoanalytic Psychiatry for Schizophrenia?" This followed your statement that, based on the assessment of a Nature editorial, psychoanalysis met the criteria of WP:Fringe. Not that it encompassed all of your argument but I assume that your point was that as it wasn't recommended or effective in the treatment of schizophrenia and that this buttressed your other arguments that it was fringe discipline? I wasn't really addressing your other arguments and I recognise the necessity of a policy such as WP:Fringe, even if the inclusion of psychoanalysis makes me uncomfortable.FiachraByrne (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple categories in WP:FRINGE, so it doesn't mean that questionable science is treated quite the same as obvious pseudoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Review by Dennis Brown

Rather than rehash a bunch of metrics that you can dig up themselves, let me just offer this. When I see you participating in a discussion, I do pay attention. Even when I disagree with your conclusion, I usually learn something or at the very least, it is easy to see that it is based in rational thought, so it has been easy to take your opinions serious and to reconsider my own. You are blunt, sometimes very much so, but I don't see that as a civility issue, more of a "cutting through the bullshit" attitude, which makes it more beneficial than anything else. Sometimes it is helpful to pull back a little and explain things in greater detail, the nuances, or ask more questions. Take this is only a reminder, not a criticism, as it something I also remind myself of. You come across has having a skeptical nature, which is generally a good thing. I have never questioned your motivation, and it is quite obvious your goal is to improve Wikipedia as a whole. In my opinion, you are clearly a net plus for Wikipedia, and have demonstrated an exceptionally high level of competence working primarily in an extremely contentious area, while being generally even handed in the process. This isn't an easy feat. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll take this on board. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Review by Kudpung

I won't do a full review here because you are already of a maturity and education that should enable you to do a pretty accurate self-evaluation. As you may be considering running for adminship in the not too distant future however, I'll jut point you to these two pages: WP:Advice for RfA candidates and RfA Criteria. if you understand the first, and meet the second, you'll be well on your way :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll have a read through before any nomination. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Review by LuckyLouie

IRWolfie's ability to keep focused on the relevant edits/policies and avoid personalizing a disagreement is a valuable asset to FTN and Wikipedia in general. Whether dealing with new users who legitimately mistake Wikipedia as free web space open to anyone who wants to promote an alternative point of view, or those who are clearly here to game the system in order to make a fringe idea sound more plausible, IRWolfie remains even-handed and maintains a remarkably cool head. If they decide at some future date to seek adminship, I hope they will continue to work in article space as vigorously as before. Unfortunately, many new admins find they must voluntarily stop engaging in ongoing talk page discussions at contentious articles or making bold changes and doing needed cleanups or reversions, since an "involved" admin's blocks and bans can be accused of bias. Wikipedia has a lot of excellent, hard working bureaucrats, but not enough good editors. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll keep that in mind. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Review by Dbrodbeck

IRWolfie's behaviour is exemplary, and this is exceedingly difficult in the areas he/she edits in. I have been impressed with this editor's level headedness and knowledge of wikipedia policies. I often find myself, when in some sort of discussion, to be pleased with IRWolfie agrees with me.... The lack of burnout impresses me as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, :) IRWolfie- (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Review by Newyorkbrad

I haven't looked at your content contributions, but I find your comments on AN/ANI and the arbitration pages to be consistently thoughtful and well-informed. I was actually quite surprised to realize just now that you aren't an administrator, and I see no reason you shouldn't seek adminship if you want it at some point. Why is there a minus sign at the end of your username? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for the comment. You are probably the first person to ask about the minus, the minus comes about from online computer games and IRC. On IRC when I was away My nick would be IRWolfie-away etc, and for online gaming I used IRWolfie-[OwP] (for the fair gaming group OwP). I stopped using IRWolfie-Away etc, but the nick "IRWolfie" just looked aesthetically wrong compared to "IRWolfie-", as if it was missing something. It doesn't make a lot of sense as a reason, but I still prefer it, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Review by NewsAndEventsGuy

Your level headed comments in the climate pages are always appreciated. Alas I do not always agree but you seem to get the wiki process NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, I don't think any two editors can always agree on everything and there is always going to be a different perspective :) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Review by My76Strat

Greetings IRWolfie-. I am interested in offering feedback in accordance with this request. I will acknowledge up front that you and I primarily support opposing views. And that we are in a current state of dissent, regarding several matters pertinent to the recent WP:AE request involving Iantresman. In fairness, none of my regards will directly relate to Iantresman, and I hope you accept them as dispassionate. Additionally, I think it's important to delineate a distinction between an "editor review" and a review of "admin qualifications/temperament". The most common oppose !vote at RfA follows a similar form of: "Great editor, but ...". Having just noticed this request, it will take some time to formulate a thoughtful presentation, and my current obligations will not afford the available time until perhaps midweek. If I'm not too late, and you desire my feedback, you can expect them by weeks end. Until then, I bid the adieu. My76Strat (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I will note that the admins at enforcement agreed with the evidence that I presented (and Naval), and no arb has agreed with your clarification filing there. You aren't an editor I have seen editing in the topic area of WP:FRINGE (though you said you watch the topic), and I would suggest becoming familiar with the guidelines.

I will also note my surprise that you arrived at enforcement considering our lack of interaction, your non-involvement in the specifics of the case, and the enforcement arising out of a pretty obscure non-fringe article talk page (Dusty plasmas). Personally, I feel you have already decided that there are aspects of my editing that you won't like, even though I don't think we have interacted; you state we have opposing views, I have no idea what you mean by that. You can still do the review, and I will still read it, but be aware that these are my expectations. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your apprehension. If you are correct, that I've "already decided"; nothing I might append, could ever be credible! If for no other reason, aside the "fat-ass" lie told above.[14] And you do have a good record for being "correct". So instead, it seems best for me to retreat; as gracefully as I may. The editors before me have given you a full and fair review. I am confident in each of their assessments, and I concur with them. Regards, My76Strat (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Review by user:Tillman

This is more in the nature of a comment. I'm unhappy with your repeated violations of WP:AGF at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucy Skywalker/Timothy Ball -- as you are aware -- and I hope you redact your statements there that violate this core policy.

I've seen a bit of your work elsewhere in the Climate Change area, and get the impression that you are perhaps over-zealous in enforcing orthodoxy in the Wiki Climate Wars. Watch that, OK? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a non-attributed staledraft, done with the intention of working around an already done AfD and deletion review; not a valid userifcation. You made matters worse by making a copy yourself. Wikipedia isn't a war ground, though I suspect you think otherwise, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Happily, your suspicion is unfounded :-) Unhappily, the WCWs continue. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What is WCW? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Climate Wars. Author has a weakness for silly acronyms <G> -- Pete Tillman (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Review by Kooky2

I should declare that I don't support most of IRW's edits and AfD proposals. Yet, his (assuming IRW is male) impressive work-rate and passionate editing style has inspired me and, I suspect, a few other editors to get more involved in Wikipedia. Also, I totally support his stated goal of cleaning up articles on fringe topics. However, while most editors have a POV, I think IRW's self-confessed anti-fringe POV and his view that WP content such as the articles on the astrological signs is cruft actually stirs up pro-fringe editors resulting in lengthy disputes where neither side is willing to compromise. While it is arguable that controversial editing leads to improved articles, overly zealous editing can also waste other editor's valuable time. This occurred with a series of inappropriate AfDs proposed by IRW. As they were rejected by most other editors, IRW attempted to alter the fringe guidelines midway through one AfD. The last of IRW's AfDs resulted in a snow keep: Article for Deletion: Nicholas Campion which engendered various negative comments by editors about IRW's apparent editing quest to remove fringe material.

If IRW could be as enthusiastic in ensuring that in any controversial article significant alternative views are also represented fairly and within the guidelines of WP:NPOV, he could become be a great WP editor.

Lastly, I would like to pass on best wishes to IRW for his education during his wikibreak. Kooky2 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You distorted my comment here [15]. I did not say I have an anti-astrology POV. I was saying I am against there being a POV in the article. You take Ken's comment at face value without any critical reasoning of your own [16]. I did not change the guidelines to use in the AfD. I even quoted the old version of the guidelines in that AfD; I had been active at WP:FRINGE before the entire AfD. I have in fact dealt with all your points before Kooky at WT:FRINGE, but you came back again to repeat them. The purpose of a review is for me to read, not for others. Cherry picking things I said, to convince me of something isn't going to work. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)