Wikipedia:Editor review/UBeR
UBeR
UBeR (talk · contribs) I've been on Wikipedia for nearly five months now. I'm most interested in keep a neutral and blanced view on controversial topics. I also work extensively on maintenance, syntax, and removing vandalism. I contribute most often to articles in which I have a general or advanced knowledge. I'd like to have an editor review to evaluate my edits made to Wikipedia. This may be particularly informative and helpful because I am often involved in certain controversy that are simply a spurious construct. Outside comments should be particularly useful--positive or negative. ~ UBeR 21:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Review
You and I have completely opposite proclivities. You work on controversial articles for hours and days, while I write a few low-profile articles and contribute in ways that intentionally avoid controversy.
I was reading parts of your talk page, and I am extremely impressed by the tone of your dialogue with other users. It's not just civil, it's respectful and honorable. I don't give out barnstars, but if I did, I'd praise you for your respectful tone in resolving disputes and hashing out controversial issues. Your writing style is also first-rate.
I noticed that 900 of your edits - about a third of your total edit count - were to "Execution of Saddam Hussein" and its talk page. I'm totally mystified how it's possible to make that many edits to one article without being a bot. Either you're extremely committed to sourcing, neutrality, and vandal-fighting, or you just forgot to hit the Preview button a few times.
Since you're so effective at resolving disputes on high-profile articles, or articles that you've worked on, I recommend that you take that skill to another area. Wikipedia has a shortage of mediators at WP:MedCab and WP:3O. With a little independent research, and your typical positive attitude, you can be very helpful as a mediator.
I'm sorry to read about your issues with admins. It might have mattered whether they were abusing admin powers (e.g. threatening 3RR blocks) or they just happened to be admins. In the former case, you might have been able to appeal at WP:RFC in the "administrator abuse" section - keep that in mind if it comes up again.
I wish you good luck. YechielMan 03:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Review
Hi UBeR! We have run into each other primarily over global warming and the related pages and contributors. I'm glad for this opportunity to shortly describe how I perceive your editing.
I very much appreciate your diligent work to improve language and flow of articles. In fact, in these areas I trust you, even on controversial articles, to the degree that I rarely even check your edits. It is a valuable service, and you are doing a great job. The only thing that you could improve in this area is increased use of "preview" button to avoid the sequence major edit, correction, correction that I sometimes see in edit histories (but, as I know myself, some errors carefully hide until you actually submit the edit ;-).
On the other hand, I notice that you have added very little actual content. In the end, that is what makes Wikipedia the useful resource that it is. I would like to see more original, sourced content, maybe in a totally uncontroversial area that you happen to have useful expertise in.
I have to say that I'm appalled by some of your behaviour outside the main article space. You often seem mean-sprited and vindicative, and fail to assume good faith. While your language is, as always, impeccable, its often full of vague allusions against "some administrator", despite the fact that the issue at hand is purely a content issue. Experienced editors that have strong support in the community don't have it because they are admins. They have it because they have a proven track record of valuable contributions. Being an admin is no big deal.
You also often resort to Wiki-lawyering instead of arguing the actual substance. Your allegation of sock-puppetry against User: William M. Connolley and User:Philosophus was completely uncalled for, as was your creation of a (now deleted) page to collect allegedly controversial edits of certain users.
--Stephan Schulz 10:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Review
I have far too many issues with your wikilawyering to make them worth listing here. But on a technical point: you recently broken 3RR on the global warming page, and marked only one of your edits as reverts: this is bad form. Also you submitted an invalid 3RR report on KimDabelsteinPetersen - there is nothing wrong with that, but once it has been pointed out why you were wrong - that contiguous edits count as one - you should have gracefully withdrawn and apolgised William M. Connolley 11:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, William. Seeing as how you didn't leave a message on my talk page, I will reply here. First and foremost, I do not believe I broke the 3RR on global warming. If you do believe I did, the appropriate place is to inform me on my talk page, not on my editor review page. That aside, I believe that ever elusive fourth revert you were perhaps looking at is where I reinserted the NPOV template. I believe erroneously removing a template, especially when the deleter is engaged in the discussion, is vandalism. As such, reverting vandalism is no big deal. In Kim's case, she reverted six times what other editors had changed. That is, some editor changed the content (in good faith, mind you) of the article in to a NPOV statement. Kim reverted six of these (without once bothering to read the talk page). That, I believe, would be twice the allowed daily limit; a clear violation.
- On the wiki-lawyering part, if some people choose to ignore Wikipedia's policies, there is, I believe, no other manner to present to said violators the policies they are breaking. If they are going to ignore the policies, you should at least make sure they know which policies they are breaking. If they don't understand them, then I believe it to be reasonable to explain to them how Wikipedia works. ~ UBeR 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- Mainly, creating glacial history of Minnesota and making major contributions to execution of Saddam Hussein and global warming.
- 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?
- Yes. I've had multiple edit conflicts with particular users, and especially administrators, who feel it necessary to own articles and push their POV on articles. In past, I tried talking to them on their talk pages, but a few select administrators, who had personal feelings and opinions that they could not preclude, classified it as "trolling." I took it upon myself to gather edit diffs of these particular administrators who abused Wikipedia policies, but the pages were deleted as "personal attacks."
Now, I've had to resort to wiki-lawyering to demonstrate on article talk pages the specific policies being violated, and most users agree. From there, any adverse edits are removed.
There are other significant conflicts I've had with non-administrators, with whom I've debated more civilly and came about agreed-upon compromises.
- Yes. I've had multiple edit conflicts with particular users, and especially administrators, who feel it necessary to own articles and push their POV on articles. In past, I tried talking to them on their talk pages, but a few select administrators, who had personal feelings and opinions that they could not preclude, classified it as "trolling." I took it upon myself to gather edit diffs of these particular administrators who abused Wikipedia policies, but the pages were deleted as "personal attacks."