User:Ultraexactzz/Admin Coaching

This page is for my Admin Coaching workspace. My main talk page is That way, or feel free to pick apart my responses below, if and when. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Self Assessment

I registered in December of 2005, having read wikipedia for months previous. I probably had a few minor IP edits in there somewhere, as well - but most of my time was in following article discussions and functional topics (such as VfD, etc). I registered to participate and contribute something to the project. Most of this took place in the Comics articles. In my zeal, however, I thought that - what the heck? - why not try to help with this Arbitration Committee thing I keep reading about? So, with my thirteenth edit, I filed my candidacy for the Arbcom. I ended up getting six support votes (and 90-some odd opposes), though 4 out of the 6 supporters ended up being banned from the project (including 2 for sockpuppetry). For the most part, the opposes were on experience grounds, which isn't surprising.

I wasn't involved in many disputes, and continued to edit sporadically through 2006 and early 2007. Interestingly, though I didn't edit much, there are no months during that span in which I did not edit at all.

In April and May of 2007, I got involved with the Heroes Wikiproject, and began working on Heroes articles, including characters, episodes, etc. That expanded into other areas, including deletion, and soon I was editing a little bit of everything. I also began reverting vandalism around this time.

One area in which I've been involved is Deletion debate sorting. There are categories for active Deletion Debates at WP:AFD, intended to help editors find relevant debates in specific functional areas. However, many debates (50 or more, at times) were being left unsorted or improperly sorted. Working with others, I wrote a script (User:Ultraexactzz/AfDsort) to help sort deletion debates into proper categories. I later added a second version that removes the sorting template from closed debates. I'm proud of this script and this process, even though - as a result - I have probably 1,000 or more edits to the Wikipedia space that consist of adjusting a single letter in a deletion debate. But I enjoy it, because it gets me to look at debates that I otherwise would probably never review. I also attempt to salvage articles up for deletion, where possible. Evergreening is a good example, but there are others. I've also tried to, where possible, get non-english articles translated before they are deleted - even attempting to seek help from the Arabic Wikipedia for one case.

I've written some articles, including Allan Berube (as a stub), Robert Furber, and Mining in South Africa, the last of which earned me my first and, to date, only DYK. I made a go at writing Fusaye Ichikawa, only to find out later that it had already been written. So I did the merge myself.

I've done some CSD work, as my deleted contributions will indicate. Most of the tags I've placed have been proper, and resulted in qualifying pages being deleted. A few were improperly placed, though I have no such examples at this time. In each case, I was clear on what I had done wrong, or how I had misinterpreted the circumstance. I've nominated some articles for deletion at AfD, and there's only one I can think of - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colne Community School - that I really screwed up. In that case, I had nominated as a nn school - not realizing that I was searching for the school by the wrong name, in an area where it wasn't even located. So, of course, it wouldn't have anything in the way of sources. I withdrew the nom, no harm no foul.

More recently, I've been involved in some discussions on WP:ANI, in some cases providing minor assistance where a non-admin can. I've served as a third pair of eyes in some circumstances, and in others I've tried to calm the parties down and initiate some meaningful discussion on the issues at hand. One incident was an edit war on the Hillary Clinton article, where there was debate on whether the word "was" should be in a sentence of the lead. I tried to start discussion, and one of the parties became upset during that discussion. Though User:Ricxster was banned for legal threats, I'd like to think that I didn't enflame the situation by attempting to calm him down.

I've reported on two users at Requests for Checkuser, and I have made multiple reports to WP:AIV. For what it's worth, I am also a rollbacker.

More to follow.

Edit Counts (for reference)

45.9% Wikipedia
24.9% Mainspace
12.5% User Talk
05.1% Talk



User:Ultraexactzz
run at Fri Jan 18 21:34:38 2008 GMT
Category talk: 4  
Category: 7  
Image talk: 2  
Image: 57  
Mainspace 1154  
Portal: 1  
Talk: 240  
Template talk: 13  
Template: 6  
User talk: 582  
User: 282  
Wikipedia talk: 157  
Wikipedia: 2128  
avg edits per page 1.59  
earliest 15:05, 22 December 2005  
number of unique pages 2919  
total 4633  

2005/12  37   
2006/1  107   
2006/2  26   
2006/3  4   
2006/4  2   
2006/5  1   
2006/6  1   
2006/7  4   
2006/8  7   
2006/9  3   
2006/10  11   
2006/11  4   
2006/12  4   
2007/1  1   
2007/2  3   
2007/3  5   
2007/4  6   
2007/5  96   
2007/6  7   
2007/7  96   
2007/8  63   
2007/9  88   
2007/10  412   
2007/11  1918   
2007/12  861   
2008/1  866   

Mainspace  
37 Heroes (TV series)  
27 Peter Petrelli  
18 Mining in South Africa  
12 List of Heroes graphic novels (season 2)  
11 List of characters in Heroes  
10 List of people from El Paso, Texas  
10 Deaths in 2007  
10 Borat  
9 Fusaye Ichikawa  
9 Moraine, Ohio  
9 Resolution  
9 Alexander Luthor, Jr.  
7 Elle Bishop  
7 Megan Meier suicide controversy  
7 Robert Furber  

Talk:  
21 Peter Petrelli  
19 Heroes (TV series)  
10 List of Heroes graphic novels (season 2)  
9 List of characters in Heroes  
8 Chris Penn  
6 Kitchen Nightmares  
6 Muhammad Qasim Malik  
6 How to Stop an Exploding Man  
5 Megan Meier suicide controversy  
5 Fred Thompson  
5 Hisham Kabbani  
4 Hillary Rodham Clinton  
4 The Hard Part  
4 D. L. Hawkins  
4 International reaction to the 2007 Pakistani state of emergency  

Category talk:  
4 AfD debates  
     
Category:  
4 AfD debates (Not yet sorted)  
2 AfD debates  
     
Image:  
5 Activating Evolution.jpg  
4 AudacityofHope.jpg  
3 Paul VI 4.jpg  
3 Ncis cast main.jpg  
2 Patty Hearst.jpg  
2 CCC Crest.jpg  
2 Bbcni.PNG  
2 Carl Ritter von Ghega money.jpg  
2 Stans future self.jpg  
2 FCS logo web.jpg  
2 Aawo old.JPG  
2 McCain08 logo-blue.jpg  
     
Image talk:  
2 AudacityofHope.jpg  
     
Template:  
3 Vandalism information  
     
Template talk:  
11 Did you know  
     
User:  
118 Ultraexactzz  
53 Ultraexactzz/monobook.js  
28 Ultraexactzz/afdsort.js  
13 Ultraexactzz/usefulitemstemplate  
13 Ultraexactzz/To-Do/Short  
11 Ultraexactzz/SandTrap  
9 Ultraexactzz/Sorting Deletion Debates  
8 Ultraexactzz/afdsort  
5 Ultraexactzz/afdtracker  
5 Ultraexactzz/afdsort2.js  
2 Ultraexactzz/Voting2008  
2 Ultraexactzz/Sock Evidence  
2 Ultraexactzz/gentracking  
     
User talk:  
23 Ultraexactzz  
8 Ultraexactzz/archive1  
7 Orangemike  
5 65.9.44.245  
4 TCuz13  
4 72.224.26.164  
4 Ohmpandya  
4 Kcraig07  
4 70.81.6.44  
4 Radiant!  
4 Ricxster  
4 134.88.173.207  
4 68.62.12.179  
4 Risker  
4 Bellwether BC  

Wikipedia:  
60 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  
36 Administrator intervention against vandalism  
25 Administrators' noticeboard  
12 Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Quickvote  
10 Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Giano II  
10 Articles for deletion/Nowheristan  
9 Requests for adminship/John Carter  
7 WikiProject Heroes  
7 Bot requests  
7 Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Ultraexactzz  
6 Requests for adminship/Orangemike  
6 Articles for deletion/Bash.org  
5 Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/to do  
5 Requests for adminship/Shalom  
5 Articles for deletion/Dylan Thwaites  

Wikipedia talk:  
31 Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007  
12 Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Giano II  
10 Task of the Day  
8 Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote  
6 Requests for rollback  
6 WikiProject User scripts  
6 Counter-Vandalism Unit  
6 New pages patrol/patrolled pages  
5 Non-free content  
5 Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions  
5 OMBUDSMEN  
5 Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/IndentAnalysis  
4 AfD categories  
3 Wheel war  
3 Articles for deletion

Question time

Will be adding these in a few hours. :) Rudget. 11:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you don't have a previous RFA, lets start with the RFA questions and we'll proceed from there. It appears that Avruch is adding three additional questions to the RFAs before any votes are cast to get a better perspective of the candidate. They are added at the bottom. :) Rudget. 12:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I'm willing to assist with any backlogged area of the project, and I know that there are several areas more backlogged than others. Given my experience to date, I'd like to review and enforce consensus at Articles for Deletion, as I think that is the area of admin-work where I am most experienced. A component of that would be work at WP:DRV and WP:CSD. In the case of Articles for Speedy Deletion, I plan to monitor the category and ensure that I have enough knowledge of the proper processes and procedures to ensure that I do it correctly and - perhaps most importantly - without Biting the newcomers.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm most proud of Mining in South Africa, given that it was my first successful DYK entry, the longest article I had written to that point, and the most detailed. It's also a core article for the subject of South Africa, given how important that industry is to the nation's economy. Of single contributions, that'd have to be high on the list. Beyond articles, I have to say that I'm proud of AFDsort, a script that I put together to assist with sorting (and unsorting) deletion debates. It's a very narrowly used script, and I'm not sure anyone else even uses it - but it simplifies what would otherwise be a tedious process, while at the same time requiring me to evaluate each AfD before sorting it - meaning that I read through the articles, and end up discussing them or, in some cases, attempting to salvage them.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A:I haven't been involved in very many conflicts at all, really. In most situations, I've tried to keep a level head and look at things objectively. The most recent dispute was an edit war at Hillary Clinton, where the word "was" was being inserted and removed from the lead. I re-added the word, and began discussions on the talk page as to why I thought it should remain. Others joined the discussion, and one editor became particularly upset. I attempted to calm him down, but failed when he was blocked for making Legal Threats. I think I handled myself well, though it's not a great result - one word and a blocked user. Again, in handling disputes - particularly should I be trusted with the tools - I plan to do my best to keep a level head about me and rely firmly on policy and consensus to solve any disputes or problems that arise. I also note, though this should be obvious, that I will not use those tools in any area where I am involved as an editor, as such use would only make things worse.

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A:Blocks are used to halt active or ongoing disruption to the project by preventing an editor from editing pages other than their own user page. Blocks are typically issued for specified periods of time, at the discretion of the blocking admin, based on the nature and severity of the activity for which the block is issued. Once the block expires, the editor is free to edit as normal, except that further disruption may result in additional or longer blocks. If the activity is not ongoing, or if the editor has ceased disruption, then a block will rarely be issued (as that would be punitive, which blocks are not).

Bans are where an editor's privilege to edit the encyclopedia is revoked, either in whole or in part. Bans may be issued for specific areas or topics of interest, or for the project as a whole. A ban may be instituted by the Arbitration Committee as a remedy, by Jimbo Wales, or (theoretically) by the Foundation. An indefinite block which no admin is willing to overturn may be considered a community ban. Bans are appealed to the Arbitration Committee.

5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

A:If there is any possibility of a BLP violation, then the material should not be re-inserted. Having said that, discussing the concern on the talk page would be necessary to see exactly what the administrator sees as the problem with the material. If there is clearly no violation, then consensus will form that the material should go back in, and it will - likely by an uninvolved editor, if I am involved in the dispute directly. If there is a valid BLP concern, there might be a way to place a compromise version of the (presumably sourced) material that would avoid the BLP issue while providing verifiable, reliably sourced information. None of that discussion can take place if I simply revert.

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall?

A:There is value in providing a means for well-intentioned editors to bring an admin to task for misuse of the tools. I particularly like Lar's criteria, as it seems to be well thought out and considered. In my case, if there is clear evidence that I misused my authority as an administrator, then chances are good I would resign the tools before 6 editors in good standing could bring a recall case against me.

Checklist

You are quite a thoughtful user and would make a fine admin. Here's a checklist for you to check what you've done and what you might want to do. Please indicate which ones you do/have done and which ones you have not. Have you:

• !voted in an RFA?

Yes, though I generally stay between Support and Neutral; I've only rarely opposed.

• Listed a vandal at WP:AIV?

Yes.

• Requested page protection at WP:RPP?

Yes.

• Had an editor review or critiqued another user there?

No,

• Received the Signpost or otherwise read it?

Yes, Spamlist and all.

• Used automated tools (Twinkle, VandalProof, Popups, .js, etc.)?

I use Popups, as well as an AIV helper script for reporting vandals and an AFDSorting script to categorize deletion debates. Both scripts require user input for each edit, which is most of why I use them.

• What XFD's have you been on before?

I've participated heavily in AfD's, with some activity at Templates and Categories for deletion. I'ev also occasionally participated at DRV.

• Posted or answered a question at the Reference desk or the Help desk?

I've never posted a question, nor answered - mainly because most of the questions I could have answered were already handled.

• Uploaded an image?

I've uploaded four, including three logos and a comic image (later superceded).

• Welcomed a user?

Yes, both as they join and when I encounter a new user in danger of getting bitten. In those cases, I try to leave some advice in addition to the stock template.

• Mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?

I've tried to seek compromise where possible, but I have never formally mediated or been to mediation myself.

• Participated in discusion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?

Yes, on both counts.

• Taken a look at Wikipedia philosophies? Which philosophies do you hold to?

I have read that page, and I find it fascinating that so many different philosophies can co-exist within this single project. It'll be a non-answer, to be sure, but I generally fall to the moderate range of philosophies. I want any edit to be correct and complete when it goes live, but am happy to take extra time to make sure it is written that way (sacrificing immediacy). The encyclopedia is not a newspaper, we do not have to be first with information - but, when we post anything about a recent or current event, It needs to be correct. I'm more inclined to re-edit a bad edit, seeking compromise, rather than revert it wholesale.

• Joined a Wikiproject?

Yes, I am a member of both Wikiproject Heroes and Comics.

• Wrote a DYK, GA, FA?

I have received one DYK, for the creation of Mining in South Africa. While I've done minor work in FAs and GAs, I've never personally taken an article through that process.

• Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?

Yes, in many cases an article nominated for deletion will be salvageable, and I'll work to find additional sources and clean it up to avoid deletion (Citing my favorite shortcut, WP:HEY).

Grab bag

• What are your personal criteria for a potential administrator?
  • I look for evidence that the editor is trustworthy. Do they have blocks for shenanigans? Have they edit warred? Are they able to edit within the bounds of policy? I also look for involvement in areas where admins would be expected to operate, such as AfD, ANI, AIV, and so on. The fact that they are familiar with these processes speaks to their desire and ability to properly handle administrative responsibilities in these areas. Editcounts and time with the project aren't critical, but I want to see that the editor has been active for at least a few months prior to the RfA (not, for example, comingoff of a 6-month wikibreak and immediately requesting the tools).
• What do you believe are your weaknesses? If you were made an admin, what would you need to read up on? What tasks do you believe you would totally avoid?
  • I don't think there is anything I would directly avoid, per se. I need to work on Speedy Deletions - though I'm familiar with the policy, I'm a little nervous about making a bad deletion. Maybe I'm gun-shy, but that's about the only area where I would tread lightly. I don't plan to help with DYK initially, though I'll monitor a few updates to make sure I'm familiar with the process. Obviously, I plan to be cautious with everything the first few times I use the tools, but I'm reasonably confident that I can handle most of the tasks.
• Why is wheelwarring a bad thing, and how can you prevent it?
  • Wheelwarring is, to my mind, simply edit warring writ large. The issue here is that an additional layer of trust is attached to adminship, and that trust is abused when an admin reverts the actions of another admin without discussion. Unless I clearly overstep my bounds or commit some gross error, I would hope and expect other admins to at least attempt to contact me or establish consensus that I was wrong at AN or ANI before reverting my action. If reverted in this manner, I would not re-do my action, but would seek further consensus. Similarly, if I see an error (clear or perceived) on the part of another admin, I would contact them and/or attempt to seek consensus at AN before reverting. Even if it's a gross error in judgement, taking a few minutes to settle the question before reverting their action should not harm the project.

Questions

Before moving on, are there any questions you would like to ask me regarding policy, administration, or anything else? Feel free to ask. bibliomaniac15 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not many, to be sure... but, actually, I do have a general question - and I'd like your take on it, as well as policy. If an admin screws up, and we both know they do occasionally, do you believe that they get more or less of a reaction? That is to say, is the reaction to their screw-up more severe because they are an admin, or do they get more of the benefit of the doubt because of the trust inherent in being an admin? I've seen cases break either way, and I'm interested in your take on it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it would depend on the situation. Administrators are given a sense of trust from the community with their tools. When they make a serious mistake, the problem is often complicated, sometimes even exacerbated, by the fact that they have broken their trust. In WP:ANI, there are two types of admin abuse reports that I have seen. The first are from the uninitiated newcomers who have landed on the wrong end of the wiki. In this case, the admin's trust is usually sufficient to protect them from these allegations. The second is when the reports are substantiated, supported with evidence. Then the matter becomes dangerous, because that's when drama arises. That's when we see the massive discussion at WP:ANI, and when RFC's and Arb requests arise. This is the direction that the IRC arbitration is taking. Not only that, but both sides in a wheel war are well acquainted with policy, further complicating the dispute.

Now granted, some mistakes are unintentional and usually only amount to a trout-slapping, e.g. Scientizzle's attempted deletion of the sandbox, but when an admin abuses the tools, edit-wars, or even worse, wheel wars, they hit the ground harder because of their higher position. bibliomaniac15 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other questions you would like to ask? bibliomaniac15 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that that's why I see so many requests for review on seemingly non-controversial admin actions at ANI, because there is that much more pressure to ensure that there is consensus. I'm reasonably confident that I will be safe, especially after a while. I've seen enough of ANI and AN to know when a second opinion might be of value. One last question, and then I'm good - what are your thoughts on recall? It seems to be a somewhat heated debate, and I'm curious about your position. That's it for me, Thank you very much. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have much difficulty seeing why the recall affair was so blown up. As I said, the mop comes with a sense of trust. If that trust is violated, the community can and should recall the admin. To me, recall is an inherent process held by the community. The only problem with this is that, like many processes in Wikipedia, there is no concrete criteria on recall. When things get arbitrary, confusion and conflict result, which is why we saw a big debacle over rollback. Moreover, the arbitrary criteria followed is that of the person getting recalled. It's like convicting a killer and having him be the jury as well. The only administrator who ever had his tools taken from recall was Crzrussian, a very capable admin who saw that the claims against him were valid, and he voluntarily gave up the tools. Unfortunately, the sense of power brought on by the tools can render any feeling of capitulating to the community very hard. Until recall becomes an actual, concrete process, I believe it will continue to bring us trouble and drama. bibliomaniac15 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't disagree... but the instant recall becomes a formal process, it becomes possible to game it, either by accusing an admin of meeting the criteria just barely, or by getting enough editors who qualify to request recall to do so... My concern would be that a good admin (who otherwise would learn from the experience and move on) would be hung out to dry. I suppose that's part of why it is not a formal process as yet. Personally, if I bugger something up bad enough, I intend to step down - but, of course, as you say, when it gets to that point, it could be a different story. Thus, trust. I doubt any circumstance involving recall would avoid drama. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to business after an enlightening question break

I'd like to know more about what you do on Wikipedia. What are your editing patterns? Do you head to your watchlist first or do you do something else? bibliomaniac15 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming I'm not looking up something specific, I generally check my watchlist first thing. If I see anything unusual or abnormal in an article I watch, I'll check the edit. Occasionally, I'll correct an error or formatting item that I see. I'll then check ANI and AN, to see what's going on around the wiki. Recently, as you may have seen, I've tried to pitch in a bit by (for example) adding userlinks to usernames referenced in complaints at ANI. I've also been checking some of the problems posted there, both to see if I can help and to see how admins are dealing with them.

Then I go to my userpage. I have the table showing RfA candidates and their support/oppose status, and I'll check on any new or familiar names on that list. Then I go to the AfD tracker. This is a project I helped get going with ST47, and by get going I mean that I requested a bot and sort of came up with the idea, and he did all the work. The bot updates two tables, one of which is this one, which shows active AfD's by category. I'll check all debates under the Unsorted and Nominator Unsure categories, and sort each based on the subject. If I see a category with more total debates than open debates, I'll run the names to see which ones are closed. I usually do this in a minute or two by mouseover-ing each title, and letting popups show me the preview. No preview means that the debate is closed. I open it up and use another script to remove all sorting templates.

In sorting these debates, I usually read through the article up for deletion, both to see what it is (to sort) and to see if it is salvageable. If it is, I'll try to clean it up. Either way, I'll usually comment on the debate. My thought here is that the debates that are unsorted or of unclear category don't get as much foot-traffic, so to speak, so - both by participating and by sorting them - I help the article get a fair shot at being Kept (or cleaned, or whatever).

At this point it varies. Recently, I've been looking through images with disputed fair use rationales to see if any could easily be corrected, and I've attempted to correct a few. There's a tracker for this on my userpage, as well. If the image is clearly fair use, I'll add a template and plug in the required information.

I have links in my browser set up for custom Recent Changes lists. One is the standard list with defaults (I think it's 100 changes, no bots). Another is 20 changes, no IPs or bots. The one I use most frequently is 25 changes, no logged-in users or bots. I'll check edits of moderate size, mainly because the small ones are rarely anything, and the large ones are almost always reverted by CLuebot or its siblings as needed. I've found that the moderate edits seem to have more vandalism, as it's not enough to add sentences, but it's too large to add a "penis" into the middle of a sentence. So, that's recent changes patrol.

I do my share of random article surfing and new page patrol (not so much recently, though). I've even worked on clearing Disambiguation pages with links. But my time is largely spent as above on the typical day. ...So much for the brief answer, I guess - but there it is. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I really like the AFD tracker. I added it to my user page. Although I don't close very many AFD's (I'm more active with blocks and protections rather than deletions), I think it's nifty. bibliomaniac15 02:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It gets me looking at debates I'd never give two seconds to otherwise, which is kind of cool. I'm glad you like the table! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)