Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ultraexactzz

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Final (44/6/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 00:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs) - To pile on to the mass of RFAs we've seen recently, I'd like to nominate Ultraexactzz for adminship. I offered to coach him after his former coach, Rudget, departed, and was very impressed at his maturity and insights as to the workings of our community, the results of which can be seen here. Ultraexactzz joined the community in December 2005 but has not been very active until recently. On the encyclopedia building spectrum, he has created 7 articles as listed on his talk page as of yet, with one DYK among them, Mining in South Africa. To help us in encyclopedia maintainance, he contributed to two scripts, AFDsort, which adds a sorting function to the edit window, and with an AFD tracker which eventually developed into AfDBot. So please consider this candidate, and may the !voting (or !!voting, or VOTING or whatever you feel like calling it) begin! bibliomaniac15 21:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe consensus was to call it "shitting", actually. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 11:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We said "crats," not "craps," I believe. bibliomaniac15 00:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• I'm happy to accept the nomination of my esteemed coach. I look forward to your comments. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I will be away from the project for most of Saturday and Sunday, 26-27 January (UTC -5), while travelling with family. I invite your questions on any matter, particularly if I can provide insight into how I would perform as an administrator. I just might not be able to answer right away. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Rodham 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.

Questions from Avruch

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.

Follow-up question: You mention discussing the concern on the talk page. How can this be done without making potentially damaging information public? --Coppertwig (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, my first step would be to go to the administrator's talk page to ask about his/her concern. They are aware of the material, and can reference their concern about it without further compromising any sensitive or damaging information, albiet in general terms (The source doesn't make that claim, so I removed it, etc.) - and, unless and until the revision is oversighted (which it should be if there is a serious concern), the version with the material is still visible, so I can review the material and see if it does indeed fail BLP in the manner the admin suggests. Per WP:BLP#Preventing BLP violations, the first step is to take concerns to the editor/administrator who removed the material.

If the admin and I cannot agree on reinserting the language as it was, then I would seek to either A) change the wording to document what the source says, B) find a different source to support the claim, or C) both. If the admin ends up right, then - since the material is already removed - we're done. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?

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. Being open to recall is consistent with that belief.

Comment. Ultra and I were discussing this issue in his admin coaching in this section. bibliomaniac15 02:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on further discussion, below, I added the following comment, copied here for reference. "It's true that I plan to resign the tools if I'm shown to have abused them, or if I am shown to have abused the trust of the community. Making myself available for recall is a means of documenting this intent, which is why I state that it is consistent with my beliefs. The question was whether I would add myself to the category, and - based on my belief that I would resign if shown to have abused the tools - the answer is yes, I would add myself to the category. " UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See Ultraexactzz's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Ultraexactzz: Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz before commenting.

• When you said you wanted candidates to trial the new tally placement, I didn't realize you meant yourself! ^Avruchtalk 22:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess, that's actually what got me thinking about it. You caught me. ^_^ UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm old and narrow-minded, but I'm not used to the tally being down there, and I don't really like it. bibliomaniac15 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, why it's a proposal. I can add a second tally up top, if you prefer. We had a test run that included one at the very bottom of the page, but that was a little much. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 05:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I added it anyway... I am used to seeing it up top. If you want to remove it then go ahead, but I believe in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs) 23:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh no fair, Rudget already made you answer my questions... ^Avruchtalk 18:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did you think us admin coaches got our questions? bibliomaniac15 00:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm more concerned about the parrots that these admin coaches are teaching to regurgitate whatever the current consensus is believed to be on issues like open to recall; that's coaching of course, but not as we know it Jim. It's corrupting. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, the answers to questions presented here, and discussed in my admin coaching session (with Rudget and biblimaniac15 both), are entirely my own. Please note, also, that neither of my coaches provided analysis or feedback on my answers - the intent, I believe, in having me answer was to get me thinking about the question and considering my position on the matter (like recall, for example). If there's a company line or stock cabal approved acceptable response which I was supposed to parrot, I must have missed a memo somewhere. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't bother me, but my questions lose their zing if you already have an answer stored up! ^Avruchtalk 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I've seen you come up with some doozys on other RfA's - you could come up with some for this one, as well. The worst that could happen is that I fail to answer properly and people oppose for it. On the other hand, I want to be an admin... So, I don't know what to tell you. :-) UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the subject of mainspace editing, I believe that adminship is more of a situation of "Can the candidate be trusted with the tools?" and "Will they be used constructively?" Yes, mainspace editing is an integral part of any editor's experience, but it is not always to be trusted. We have those admins who are pure Wikignomes that wield their tools very well, and we also have those who are fantastic at article writing but incivil and unsuitable for adminship. That said, I believe that Ultraexactzz has had a relatively varied experience around Wikipedia, and although he might focus more on the projectspace workings of the encyclopedia, I do believe that he has done a fair job at article writing. bibliomaniac15 21:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support per nom. bibliomaniac15 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I was tempted to oppose for your nominator's blatant misuse of "vote"... — DarkFalls ^talk 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Whatever you want to call it... bibliomaniac15 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. I was waiting for this one. Good user. Acalamari 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Easy support. I don't know that folks who aren't regular WT:RFA participants will get the !!vote etc. references in the nom, though ;) ^Avruchtalk 22:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong support. How could I not? Like I said to you before, you'll make a great admin. Malinaccier (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Would have like to see more admin-related edits, but I saw no indication would abuse the tools. Dlohcierekim 00:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support As per nom and the trusted judgement of Acalamari.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong Support Very civil user, I'm certain he'll user the admin tools in a way that is best for the wiki. Icestorm815 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Absolutely; seen him around, knows what he's talking about, and trustworthy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Hell, I need to oppose for not accepting my first nomination, yea Secret ^account 04:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Sure thing. :) GlassCobra 05:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support No problems here. MBisanz ^talk 05:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Definitely. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 08:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Gah, I had to be offline for most of the day today. Sorry, no co-nom from me, but absolute best of luck, mate. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - No doubt about it, you deserve the tools. Cheers, LAX 11:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Vote of support per nom. User:Dorftrottel 11:52, January 25, 2008
18. Support Good user. Spencer^T♦C 15:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. !Oppose. Which, of course, means I support. And I'll add an ITYWOA. (pronounced "itty-whoa"). I Thought You Were One Already. Keeper | 76 17:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. I am, of course, endorsing this candidate's request for adminship. Ultraexactzz, a user whom I've come to admire over numerous XFD discussions, RFA participation, and other undefined namespaces had initially inspired me to want to coach him. Although inspite of my recent departure, I felt it hugely necessary for me to support this nomination. Bibliomaniac has completed a tremendous effort and his endorsement of this participation, is another strong reason for me to support it. Do I trust Ultra with the tools? Yes, I do. And the many reasons why are all explained in the nomination statement. Rudget. 18:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Absolutely. Timmeh! 00:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support No substantial dispute resolution experience. Majorly (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support no problems. Marlith ^T/C 00:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Do not see any problems. Seems trustworthy. Unlikely to abuse administrator tools and other reasons per above. Earthbendingmaster 02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support, user's contributions to AfD have been of a consistently good quality. Good luck! Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
26. Support per above. NHRHS2010 12:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support A user who won't abuse the tools. --Sharkface217 21:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support - Mop up! Gromlakh (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Knows a lot about Wikipedia, and seems like the kind of person who is nice to everyone he meets. Stupid2 (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - No real concerns. Should be OK. Lradrama 11:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 14:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support per WP:AGF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triona (talk • contribs) 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. I see good things in the candidate's contribs: knowledge of fine points of image policy, as far as I am able to discern; knowledge of speedy-delete policy; ability to judge other users from their contribution history. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - Looks fine here; give em' the mop; WP:AGF. Tiptoety ^talk 21:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, looks good, opposes rather superficial. Wizardman 13:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - to counter Anwar's misguided oppose. The Transhumanist 15:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong support I've seen nothing but good things from this candidate. Good luck with the tools. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support A solid candidate whose contributions indicate a net positive to Wikipedia. The opposers have failed to provide any evidence as to why misuse (let alone abuse) of the tools is likely to occur. Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support as a very good editor, and I am tempted to support merely for creating Allan Berube. No issues or concerns that the user will abuse the tools. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support: --Bhadani (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support: RT | Talk 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Can be trusted Alexfusco⁵ 23:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose No substantial dispute resolution experience. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Thats a new one... ^Avruchtalk 21:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   This would seem to suggest that the user in question is, although AGF, trolling. Two opposes based on the same rationale with two-minutes is quite something. 90.194.244.64 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I am paging through all of the RFA's currently. The first two were easly determined. I've now declined to comment on the next 3. I'll be done soon enough. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I fail to understand. Do you believe all candidates retain these qualities? 90.194.244.64 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I believe that without evidence of behavior in moderate conflict promoting yet another adminstrator is a risk not worth taking. If a candidate has not seen moderate conflict in their time here, they haven't met my criteria. Since finding moderate conflict to solve is trivial, it should be reasonably easy for new adminstrative applicants to meet my requirements. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   For the matter, I had none either beyond staying out of fights, seeking to discuss, AGF, and seeking an outside opinion when needed. Dlohcierekim 21:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm glad you turned out ok even though we had no strong evidence you were not a disruptive presence in disputes. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   We had plenty of proof throughout Dlohcierekim's contrib history. You moron should consider not making a fool out of yourself by opposing like this. User:Dorftrottel 21:50, January 25, 2008

   Generally, if a user is contentious, it shows up in their talk pages. I assume, in the absence of proof of contentiousness,, other users ae at least as cool-headed (reasonable) as I am. I also remember the words off a man I respect greatly in real life politics, even though we are now opposed to one another politically, "it does not matter so much if we disagree so long as we don't do so disagreeably." A certain other user here has also helped me by turning me on to what I call apathy. Dlohcierekim 03:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose It would be better if this user spent a year or two writing and contributing normal articles. This would give him/her a wider perspective, and probably make him/her more tolerant. It is very difficult to understand why someone whose 'normal' use of Wikipedia is so slight would even want admin status.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose. The job of the administrators is to support the article writers. Without experience of article writing themselves they can have no idea of what that job actually entails. As they used to say in the British Army, "get your knees brown". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Read his Q2 answer. It kinda relates to article writing. Oh the irony... Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Just to pile on here because this attitude needs to be debunked; the role of administrators is specifically not to involve themselves in content disputes or support any specific side in a dispute. Their job most of the time is to do boring stuff like going through WP:RFPP . You don't need to be an experienced editor to do that. All you need is a fair grip on policy. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Ambiguous statements about recall are even worse than firm commitments to recall.CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Stating clearly his intentions is an improvement, but I can't trust anyone who claims they will volunteer for recall. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   What on earth is ambiguous about his statement? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   From what I can gather from his admittedly vague statement, he's not going to put himself up for recall because he'd resign his tools before it came to that event. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It's true that I plan to resign the tools if I'm shown to have abused them, or if I am shown to have abused the trust of the community. Making myself available for recall is a means of documenting this intent, which is why I state that it is consistent with my beliefs. The question was whether I would add myself to the category, and - based on my belief that I would resign if shown to have abused the tools - the answer is yes, I would add myself to the category. I hope this helps to clarify my position. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose. Fails JG Test. Anwar (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   So do most other admins. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose Doesn't yet pass my requirements. Get active on the backend and try again in the few months. Lawrence § t/e 17:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose This AfD comment shows that user did not consider WP:BIO before !voting as the player actually fails the criteria (as he has not played in a fully-professional league), though Kudos is due for later striking out part of the comment which violated WP:CRYSTAL. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   With respect, the source I referenced quotes the team's manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, as saying, with regard to the article's subject: "He’ll be a nice wee addition, I think he’ll get involved once or twice as the season goes on." I took this to be confirmation that Welbeck would play in the next (or certainly an upcoming) game for the team, which would satisfy WP:BIO. Per WP:CRYSTAL, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." and "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." The event (the individual's first game) is confirmed by a reliable source (the team's manager), and is almost certain to take place. On that basis, I recommended that the article be Kept. I struck a comment that the player would start the team's next game, as the source does not actually say that - but I believe my interpretation of policy in this case is sound, the fact that you appear to disagree not withstanding. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, but for all we know he could break his leg or die in a car crash before he actually ever plays (this has happened before). Even though it might be likely that he'll play, it's still not good enough. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   That's as may be, but we don't have any sources that WP:V verify that he'll break his leg, do we? All kidding aside, my main intent was to clarify that I did indeed consider policy, particularly WP:BIO and WP:CRYSTAL, in evaluating that article for deletion, which was your concern here. The fact that our interpretations differ didn't seem relevant - that's why it's called an AfD Debate. Best to you, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral A review of the contrib history and count show that the vast majority of edits have been over the last 3 and a bit months, and that most are process orientated. While I have no qualms regarding wiki-gnoming (believing it to be a noble calling) I am not seeing the breadth of editing in article space or in user talkpages; I cannot therefore support at this time. Neither can I see any indication that the user will purposefully misuse the buttons, and the admins providing guidance are top quality. I am therefore neutral. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.