Wikipedia:Editor review/UBeR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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 to inform me is 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. However, I will work on marking my reverts as such. Thank you for that. 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 engage in discussion on 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)

Its been pointed out to you that contiguous reverts count as one; which is why KDP didn't break 3RR. This is part of the 3RR policy. Stubbornly refusing to admit error is one of your major faults as an editor, and is highly relevant here. Asserting with no evidence that KDB failed to read the talk page is a violation of the AGF that you press on others.

And while we're on stubbornness, refusing to admit your own 3RR is also bad, which is why I bring it up here. The reverts in question are these: [1], [2], [3], [4]. And no, removing templates is not vandalism - this kind of weaselly excuse does you no credit.

But I'm glad you'll (try) to mark reverts in future. Don't forget that partial reverts count as one William M. Connolley 17:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said previously, the appropriate place to raise 3RR concerns is my talk page. For the comment on Kim, I apologize for using a poor set of words. I meant she did not bother to discuss any of the content on the talk page whilst a discussion was ongoing. As for my reverts, it's clear Count Iblis was not acting in good faith and should be considered vandalism. ~ UBeR 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Right - this is bringing out very nicely whats so wrong with your editing - your refusal to accept or apologise for errors, instead choosing to evade at implausible length. The issue with KDP is not the choice of words - the issue is that contigous edits count as one, hence KDP did not violate 3RR. Why you refuse to admit this, when its the verdict on the 3RR page, is a mystery. As to your own 3RR - no again: the vandalism exception is drawn very tightly, "should be considered vandalism" is weaselling and never works as an excuse. But if you like... you also have [5] (marked as an rv). So you have 5 by my count and 5-1 by yours William M. Connolley 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

She reverted 6 six times what constitute good faith edits. It's a clear breach of policy. Her edits, separated by a lengthy amount of time, I would hardly consider contiguous. But how many times have you apologized for the countless policies you have violated? From my count, zero. UBeR 21:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought you'd be reduced to attacking me rather than considering your own conduct. But back to you, since this is what this page is about: you've not answered my point about *your* 4R: whats your current count? And (once again) KDP's edits came in several blocks. Each block only counts as one revert (the last 3 are one: [6]; the first 2 are one [7]; leading to a max of 3 possible reverts). This is explicitly in the 3RR policy. So it appears that you are (a) unable to read the 3RR policy correctly (let me quote it for you Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule.) (b) unable to recognise a violation of 3RR by yourself. This (once again) is a fundamental flaw in your editing: an inability to admit you are wrong William M. Connolley 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

William, I am not sure if you are here to make a mockery or what, but I reckon you are in the wrong place. I usually do not engage in fallacious arguments such as these, but I thought you needed a nice introduction to Mr. Kettle. (I don't see how the same argument from one person could be considered an attack and constructive criticism from another.) But I concede, I should not engage in such boorish and fallacious arguments you often stoop to. Sure, I could cry about your so-called lawyering above, but what does that help. It only retards our discussion of the main point, which is that I made four reverts to one article in a matter of 22 hours. But I think I will reiterate it again: Wrong place to discuss. But you seem relentless for some reason. If you are having problems with the internment of your personal feelings, might I suggest for you a few days to cool off. The issue is behind us, the article is locked, and, as one administrator pointed out to you, 3RR blockings are not meant as punishments. So why do you continue?

Once again, you seem unable to keep the focus on you, which is what this page is about. The issue here is your editing faults. You put yourself up for review because you were interested in areas where you can improve, yes? And it becomes obvious that admitting your errors is very difficult for you, even when they are blatant. Your 3RR report of KDP was wrong. Theres nothing terrible about that - people submit wrong reports quite often. The problem is your refusal to admit your error, and your apparent inability to understand the rule on contiguous edits.

Its nice to see you finally admitting to your own 3RR violation: I made four reverts to one article in a matter of 22 hours - well done, this is real progress, even if you did your best to bury it and haven't actually apologised (and of course it was 5, not 4). Now you need to re-examine the rules in the KDP case - you are, I understand, a stickler for rules? William M. Connolley 09:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know full well what this page is for. I would appreciate, however, if you wish to inform me, or any other editor, of a possible 3RR violation, that you notify them on their talk page. You ought to know better than that, William. ~ UBeR 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We've established you violated 3RR, and you've admitted it, though grudgingly. Thats good. What you still haven't managed to admit is that KDP *didn't* violate 3RR. You're half way there - why not go the full way? And the reason this is here, of course, is that it relates to your style of editing - in this case, you appear to be embarrassed to admit that you've misread the rules. Since you spend so much time elsewhere explaining the rules, this is important William M. Connolley 18:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Embarrassed? The able, learned, and distinguished William, if anyone should be embarrassed it should be you for your behavior. If I were embarrassed I would follow your archetype and delete anything that might animadvert on myself. I don't care if people see this. This is just petty and a waste of time. You and I both know this. You are here for fun and games, for little more than a mockery. If you wish to continue your oafishness, feel inclined to do so. Seraphimblade already identified [8] and [9] as reverts. [10] is reversion of my edit that explained the SPM position that volcanism and solar forcings play most of the role over the last seven centuries till 1950. That's three, if you haven't been keeping count. When taken together, edits [11] and [12] you considered reverts. That's four. ~ UBeR 19:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Still failing to stick to you, I see. As to KDP: Each block only counts as one revert (the last 3 are one: [13]; the first 2 are one [14]; leading to a max of 3 possible reverts). This is explicitly in the 3RR policy. So it appears that you are unable to read the 3RR policy correctly. Are you aware that contiguous edits count as one for the 3RR? Are you aware that some of the edits yor're listing are contiguous? Once again: your twisting and turning is not seemly, you do yourself no favours William M. Connolley 20:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Review

Actually despite complaining once about you (for a personal attack on WMC) I am happy to have your input and there is a clear sign of improvement towards the rules. Don't get wound up about William M. Connolley or other editors though. Life is short and we are all trying to get Wikipedia better: practicality is more important than ritual here. --BozMo talk 09:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, BozMo. ~ UBeR 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Review

I believe that you prefer to leverage WP policy when it helps you achieve a particular POV goal. When it doesn't suit you, you ignore it [15], [16], especially when you made this comment just after breaking it yourself; "Editors are not here to pass judgement on what number is "large"". Your future contributions to WP can have promise if you take steps to significantly reduce your POV, 3RR, and wikilawyering tendencies. --Skyemoor 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Skyemoor. Seeing as how you didn't leave a message on my talk page, I'll respond here. To start, I will say you are grossly confused as to what I am doing here. The two diffs you presented show me inserting sourced and correct material. Do you object to me doing that? Either you are grossly confused as to how Wikipedia works and what editors reviews are meant for, or you trying to make a circus out of nothing. Making an assumption, I suppose, would be considered not assuming good faith, so I'll leave that one to the imagination. Last I checked, you're the one with the double standard. But before you start changing my bona fide edits again, I suggest you actually read the sources I am providing, rather than making presuppositions. If you are, then please inquire about them on the talk page if you are unsure of what the source is saying, as I agree this can sometimes be difficult science for the unlearned.

The next issue I would like to address is your continued accusations or excuses of wiki-lawyering. They are inappropriate and distracting fallacies. I suggest you avoid such arguments in the future. You're making ado over nothing. Are you suggesting following the rules is a bad thing (again)? I'm having difficulty understanding you and your logic. ~ UBeR 21:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You've violated 3RR, have been called on the carpet numerous times for wikilawyering, and have pronounced POV tendencies that many other editors have complained about. Now you've asked for an editor review, wanting nothing more than what amounts to gratuitous applause (else you call reviewers 'unlearned'). Re-read Wikipedia:Editor review and quit pissing into the wind. --Skyemoor 02:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologize for my strong language. I suppose people from all walks of life contribute to Wikipedia, including those with thin skin, and I will take that in consideration. Thanks. As for the 3RR, it was exactly that. Three reverts. As for wiki-lawyering, it seems only you and have William have stuck to the claim, and somehow are trying to use this excuse your behavior. I'm sorry, but it's just a sad, sad excuse. "POV tendencies"? You seem to be the one inserting blatant unsourced POV material, so I'm not sure you're the best person to be judging "POV." ~ UBeR 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Review

UBeR's style of editing the Global Warming page reminds me of this person's investigations of this issue. He'll try to use "wiki law" to edit out well established facts instead of constructive editing and discussing disagreements about the contents of the article. Any discussion with him on the talk page quickly shifts from the factual disagreement to a discussion about "wiki law". This, of course, doesn't produce good results.

Indeed, no legal system can function properly without a neutral judge. So, if we all start to behave like UBeR, then you would end up with wiki-lawyers and wiki-judges. The lawyers would be able to edit the talk pages, argueing about changes to the articles and the judges would make their rulings and change the article accordingly.Count Iblis 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Count Iblis. Seeing as how you didn't leave a message on my talk page, I'll respond here. Just a note, editor reviews are meant for the editor, not other people. More helpful to direct your comments toward the editor. Second, I would like to point to you that Wikipedia isn't truth, it's verifiability. "It demeans the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelize your idea, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said—even if you don't like it." And there is good reason for this. Very good reasons. This is what Wikipedia is built upon. Denying this is denying the very pillar that supports the survival of Wikipedia. OK, so this isn't about what I believe or what you believe. If, in fact, as you purport, there are well established facts, surely there should be some other source other than Wikipedia talking about? So there are good reasons why Wikipedia allows statements from reliable sources be included, instead the original ideas of its editors. Next, your accusations of not constructively editing is against the spirit of Wikipedia and assuming good faith. Next, you're right I'm not arguing on the factual accuracy but rather how it relates to what Wikipedia allows. I'm not arguing against any factual accuracy (with a few exceptions such as natural forcings causing cooling), but rather how much opinion and subjective statements editors should be allowed to include. ~ UBeR 20:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, thanks for replying! I think that the problem is that science is different from most other topics. Science is about finding the truth and in many cases we do have something that is close to the truth. Alternative theories must be mentioned, but cannot be given too much weight if the science is settled. If there is a public debate in which the science is much more disputed than in the scientific comminity, then that's a separate subject on which one can write a separate article. This is not really that different from how one deals with Neo-Nazis who dispute that 6 million Jews were killed in WWII. This is not given much attention in the article about the Holocaust. But there is an article about Neo-Nazis and their beliefs.

Also, note that by "constructive" I meant editing in the way I think is going to improve the article and we clearly have disagreements about that. Count Iblis 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not arguing against any scientific theory. ~ UBeR 22:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

Questions

1. 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.

2. 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.