Wikipedia:Editor review/Katr67

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Katr67

Katr67 (talk ยท contribs) I'm not sure I'm interested in being an admin--I'm just looking for any advice that I can use to improve as an editor. Mostly I'm hoping to improve my understanding of various learning styles (including not assuming other editors' brains work the way mine does), then apply this knowledge to improve the civility of my interactions with editors who frustrate me. Katr67 17:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as admin-related duties, mostly I revert vandalism on articles on my watchlist, and I warn them about 75% of the time and add appropriate sharedIP tags when needed. When I have time, I check to see if the vandal has edited other articles not on my watchlist. I have recently started reporting vandals. I also welcome new users and thank anons for good contributions. Other areas of interest include helping remove backlogs at Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, Category:Articles that need to be wikified, and Category:Category needed. Katr67 13:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hello there, Katr67. Here are some thoughts.
    • Over 4700 edits, with a 100% edit summary usage in both major and minor edits. 440 or so edits in user talk pages, and nearing 800 article talk edits. These numbers tell me you are willing to discuss with others. As I usually say, Wikipedia is both a community of editors and an encyclopedia. Thus, every one of us must both know how to write articles, and how to communicate with others.
    • Now, I notice a lot of "small" edits, like categorizing, disambiguation repairs, tagging, etc. You could be considered a WikiGnome, someone who is happy bouncing across articles, doing small fixes here and there. WikiGnomes are usually in charge of making articles fulfill the different manual of style recommendations. If you are willing to give the WikiGnome' spirit an opportunity, you may check the manual of style, choose one recommendation, and bounce through Special:Random, seeing if the article needs that fix or not. That is a pretty good way of learning how to format articles.
    • The fact that you are creating new articles is pretty good, indicates you are confident in your experience about style, referencing and neutral point of view. Even stubs are good, because as I say, when an anonymous finds a red link, he can't create the respective article. However, if he finds a stub, he will be able to contribute without needing to register.
    • You have around 250 edits in the Wikipedia namespace, mostly WikiProjects, a few AIV reports, and some AFD participation. If you want to become an administrator, you will need to spend some more time patrolling, reverting and warning users in their talk pages. This will allow users to check how you would handle, as a future administrator, reports in the administrator noticeboard and incident board. And some more in the different AFD discussions. Remember that people will create a profile about your deletion capabilities by examining the way you participate in AFDs.
    • Now, handling users who don't want to understand. That is a big topic, and I guess people could write books about that. Personally, first and foremost I respect the 1RR: if you make a change and it gets reverted, unless it is plainly vandalism, I don't revert back, but instead discuss in the talk page. Sometimes matter go to a more personal discussion through user talk pages, although I have been lucky to have solved most (if not all) my problems through article talk pages. It is important to note that these users are likely to have problems not only with you, but with anyone else, thus keeping the discussion public (article talk pages, in example) makes them feel the "pressure" of consensus. Now, this may sound harsh, but when people just don't understand, I slam the different policies and guidelines in the talk page as they are required, to show that people have agreed on a set of rules. The most useful ones are Ownership of articles (nobody owns an article, useful when a user does not accept your valid modifications), 1RR (it is always preferred to discuss than revert), 3RR (when in presence of an edit war), cool, when people begin rising their tone, and both civility and no personal attacks when things are boiling. Note that the more times you quote different Wikipedia essays, guidelines and policies, the more chances you will be successful if you need to change the approach. If the discussion is leading nowhere, you can always request a third opinion. Also, check resolving disputes to learn the different steps that are suggested to apply in order to solve disputes. The most important thing is always to stay cool and civil, no matter the situation. And, if it is a lost case, just do what you did, leave the discussion. Wikipedia is supposed to be entertaining, a relaxing experience. If it is stressing you, it is better to take a wikibreak.
    You are a very hard-working editor, interested in working with article backlogs. Note that you don't really need administrator tools to do what you do (categorize, wikify, tag, etc). If you enjoy doing these tasks, keep doing them, as they are extremely important (I usually tag maybe 50 articles per day with {{uncategorized}}, {{linkless}}, {{wikify}} and {{inappropriate person}}). If you want to be an administrator, know that you will have to focus in vandal fighting and XFDs, tasks handled primarily by them. While the way you handled that third inconvenient is good enough to keep things cool, it is as important to have stayed cool and civil. As a side note, you are likely to have quite a lot more of discussions like those ones as administrator, and you are expected to be even cooler, as you have both different abilities and more experience. I think you have potential for becoming an administrator, but you need to focus on that. Good luck -- ReyBrujo 02:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well this is the first one of these I've written. We'll see how I do...
    If you're looking for how people approach the wiki, you could do worse than reading through Wikipedia:New user log for all the different rationales on why people show up and the first thing they do. If you haven't already looked through the "faction" descriptions, such as m:Darwikinism, and 'association' descriptions, such as the leaving-nothing-to-the-imagination m:Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionist. They're not particularly useful in nailing down a particular user, but you can see certain traits or arguments pop up when watching a large debate, such as at WP:FAC or WP:RFA.
    You can also follow the edits of users who appear to be a good at handling disputes. The obvious place to look is Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, but it may be worth digging into the contribution history or talk page of any user who gives you a "Well, that was a nice way to handle that"-moment.
    As for general editing, I have little to say, which is a good thing. You are a content specialist in a particular subject and carry out a variety of related tasks. That's all good.
    I would like to add that there are a variety of admin tasks that you do based off the three cats you list above. As you know, sometimes these articles should probably be deleted or are copyright violations. Keep with WP:AFD until you get a feel for the where the bar is and the hot button issues (bands, schools, webcomics, etc), and then move your way up through prods and varieties of speedies. See User:Kjkolb/Copyvio for how to go about determining if an article is copyvio. Steady work in these areas and knowledge of the processes will get you an admin-ish profile. As you are a copyeditor, you may be interested in noting mistakes at WP:ERRORS.
    Your reverts look exactly like that of an admin's. I don't know what script you're using but I find it a bit offputting, in that it looks like you're trying to appear like an admin. On your contribs page you have a featured star next to New Carissa, which makes it look like you are claiming it as an article you got featured. Given that FAs are one of the few undebased forms of credibility on the wiki, I would be very certain that this is what you want to present. Some people will go through the actual article contributions to see if the user may be poaching another users's work. The big question that I ask at RFA is "Do I trust this user?" and you don't want to cause doubt through simple stuff. Set your preferences to force edit summaries; there is no reason for every edit not to have one.
    Regardless of what sort of admin-ish task one does, you find yourself in the middle of a dispute eventually. Many well respected and long term editors choose to avoid the hassle and there is no shame in waiting. The longer you wait, the deeper your experience on the wiki and the clearer you are in why the mop would be useful to you, the more likely you are to pass RFA. - BanyanTree 05:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Reply to BanyanTree: Hi BT, thanks for your review. As far as "what script I am using" for my vandal reverts, I copied a bit of boilerplate I found somewhere and put it on my Userpage, which I then copy and paste into the edit summary and add the Usernames by hand. I did not realize this would be construed as "trying to appear like an admin". I had no idea that's the summary you get when you revert using admin tools, I just figured other people were using some fancy anti-vandal program I didn't understand. I starting doing the copy-and-paste thing because I thought doing it that way would be a lot more helpful to other editors than simply typing "rvv". If I should stop or use another approach, please let me know. On my contribs page, New Carissa is under my heading "Added to/improved", and though I have certainly seen editors who take credit for the tiniest contributions, I try to only add things to that list that are at least somewhat significant. The New Carissa article was started by EngineerScotty and became a collaborative effort for several of us in WikiProject Oregon. You can see some of my questions about that on the article's talk page and on the project page. I doubt EngineerScotty would feel I was "poaching", and in fact he thanked me for my copyediting. I placed the star there to point out to whoever wandered by that the article was a featured article, as I am darn proud that WPOR got one. If this generally indicates to other editors that it is "my" article then I can take if off. Again, I did not realize this and had no intention of misleading anybody. If you can point me to any relevant policy about these issues, I would be grateful. Oh and BTW, I already have a 100% edit summary count for both major and minor edits. :) Thanks again, looks like I have some reading to do! Katr67 06:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    Hi Katr67, I perhaps didn't clarify that I was offering an evaluation as if you were someone I was giving last minute advice to before nominating, taking the approach that a pleasant surprise when my dire predictions don't come to pass is better than a rude surprise. I was not actually accusing you of anything. Sorry, I don't know how these editor review things are supposed to work. The problem with RFA, at least in many people's minds, is that many of the norms are not written down anywhere, despite the existence of WP:GRFA, or at least that there are so many different things that people might be concerned about that the only way to know what the biggies are is to watch RFA for a long time. There's actually an example of someone being challenged over the FAs they claim on RFA right now, though I doubt you could find a relevant policy. If you want to clarify your involvement in the FA, simply adding a note (Added some content and copyedited in FA push), or whatever, after the star is a perfectly valid way of clarifying your involvement.
    As for rollback, the format "Reverted edits by 71.7.210.179 (talk) to last version by JaneDoe", where the IP address links to contribs, is the form produced by the admin rollback button. On rare occasions, I've seen users in need of urgent admin help check recent changes for an admin rollback to see who was actively editing. Some admins do not self-identify on their user pages, in which case one way to find out is to check for admin rollback. If you're not an admin and have identical rollbacks, you can see the concern. Here's a list of rollback emulation scripts that can be added to your monobook. All of these slightly modify the edit summary so they can be distinguished from admin rollback. I highly recommend popups as being insanely useful. (You may want to tell the user that you got the boilerplate from about how grouchy I am about this issue.) Good to know about the edit summaries; that was an afterthought as I was finishing up and apparently forgot I had already read about it above.
    Like I said, you are a fine user and, frankly, if you show a demonstrable need for admin tools you would be a serious candidate now. Don't tell the people at RFA I said this, but sometimes it gets a little Escher-esque. Many voters are on the margin: they would vote if they saw something that sparked their interest or they are on one of the divides between support/neutral/oppose and are looking for something to push them in one direction. An oppose based off one of the disputes you mention above (again, I did not dig that far) might be such a push for some voters. Smart RFA behavior is to remove any of the silly stuff that people point out (like me), before someone points it out in the RFA and it becomes, by its existence, something that instills doubt. For example, based off my quick review I would lean towards support but probably would probably pass by (which I normally do for users I don't know and aren't having interesting RFAs). But I might notice your rollbacks and leave a note in the questions or comments about it. Let's play this out: You say "I had no idea that's the summary you get when you revert using admin tools". Someone else says "So you aren't familiar with the tools?" Regardless of what happens next or how reasonable you're being, people on the margin just took a mental step away from where you want them to be. Of course, if you have a strong enough candidacy, the marginal people may not form enough of a group to derail an RFA, or may be nonexistent - all the neutral people being moved into support and all the opposers moved into neutral or just passing by without comment.
    I have a feeling that I offended you in my previous post and, if so, I apologize. These editor review thingies are much more involved than I thought they would be and I think I will refrain in the future. I wish you the best, BanyanTree 13:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Nope, you didn't offend me but thanks for explaining your approach--looking at me as a last-minute RfA candidate. That makes a lot of sense. I was just really surprised to think my actions might be being misconstrued, as I try really hard to discover what the rules are around here and apply them. (As evidenced by my lack of serious (as in outside the realm of a user or two) conflict so far.) And I had just had another little run in with someone. (You can see the results here), and so I was a little bit sensitive about having my actions misconstrued. Your additional comments are really helping me understand what's at stake in an RfA. I'm beginning to think I'm way too sensitive to be an admin, but if I decide the rollback feature will help me keep the vandals at bay, and I run out of Wikignomelike things to do (doubtful) I may consider it if someone nominated me. (I doubt I would self-nominate.) I'll see about my vandal boilerplate thingy today too. Happy editing! Katr67 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I checked for the template. I actually found it on a Wikipedia help page, so if this incorrect it definitely needs to be changed, because as a relative newcomer, I treat these pages as Wikigospel and don't wish to be penalized for following the rules. Katr67 18:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll refrain from repeating the expletive that I uttered when I read this. The Help pages are all copied from the masters at Meta, but it this case there hasn't been an update since November 2005. The Meta page had been quickly corrected to avoid mimicking admins. I'll remember this next time I want to complain about a Wikipedia mirror with outdated content. I've done a manual update of that Help page, which now suggests that you use "rv" rather than "revert", for which I have no concerns. Thanks for checking on this. I have to wonder how many other users are going on this bad info. As for being penalized, in this case, you gain bonus credibility for being the victim of a ridiculous oversight. ;) Best, BanyanTree 21:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)Awesome! If I ever go for an RfA, I'll be sure to look you up so you can vouch for me. :D But seriously, I'm glad I could help. Katr67 21:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I'm pleased with all of my work on Oregon so far, especially my work adding articles on small communities and the associated clean up that goes with that. (I have yet to have anyone point out that I completely screwed anything up, anyway.) Currently I'm helping Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places untangle the mess that is List of Registered Historic Places in Oregon. I think I've done a pretty good job fixing up that list, though obviously there is still a lot of work that needs to be done.
  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?
    I've had encounters with about three editors that I found stressful. In one case, I was accused of vandalism for removing links to an article that been through two thorough deletion reviews and subsequently deleted. I think I handled that one pretty well. The next one was with an editor who disputed my removal of what I considered a rant from the front page of an article. In that one, I was accused of censorship. Looking at that one, I think I acquitted myself fairly well in the end, but I now approach the deletion of information from the main article space a little more gingerly. Finally, I became completely frustrated with an editor who doesn't seem to grok how Wikipedia works. In dealing with that one, I had to take the article in question off my watchlist and cool off. That is the approach I plan to take in the future if I feel stressed, though I would rather learn how to find new ways to reach the editors who frustrate me rather than just walk away.