Wikipedia:Editor review/Seadog.M.S (2)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Seadog.M.S

Seadog.M.S (talk · contribs) Recently I have been considering running for admistratorship, I will probably run in Febuary. This is plenty of time untill then but I would like to know what I am doing right and what needs to be improved. Also additional Questions are very much appreciated and I will answer them as soon as I can Seadog 19:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Seadog is very good at working cooperatively with others. HeBhagawan 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Seadog is a man with human heart. I have seen him helping Wikipedia by his edits - a man working silently for Wikipedia. My heart goes with all best wishes for his desire to come true. swadhyayee 02:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, here goes. I'm going to steal Daniel.Bryant's style of review entirely :)

He has made a very fascinating user-page.

  • Statistics
  • Activity: You may want to spread this out a little - most of your edits are confined to your areas of interest. While I appreciate that you are trying to raise Hinduism to FA, after that you may want to branch out a little. RfA regulars like to see a nice spread of edits across a variety of articles, just to show that you can deal with a variety of issues.
  • Mainspace: You may need to up this a little. Personally, I like to see editors who have about half their edits in the mainspace - yours is about 25%. Since you enjoy writing, and are helping to raise Hinduism to FA, maybe pick a few selected Hinduism-related articles and raise them to GA status? Some RfA !voters like to see GAs or FAs on your resume, as they then know that you appreciate how hard that side of the encyclopedia can be.
  • Wikipedia: A little on the low side. Some people will oppose you for this. The majority of your contributions to the WP-space seem to be MotD nominations. However, I've seen you take part in AfD and TfD as well, so I would recommend you hang around these areas a little more. If you enjoy it, that is :) I noticed some AIV reports, too, which is great. While working on Hinduism, you may want to review other featured article candidates - not only will this be helpful for the article, but it will help you see what people's standards are like for FA-class articles.
  • User talk: Very good, I personally prefer admins who have a lot of interaction with other users.
  • Behaviour
  • Civility: You're a very civil user, which is great to see. I've never seen you lose your cool or become stressed out, which is frankly remarkable, considering how volatile religious articles can be. Good work!
  • Courtesy and kindness: You're very kind, you're willing to ask questions, and answer questions when they're asked of you, which are both admirable traits.
  • Time period: Interiot's tool says you've been here for about 2 months. Now, I generally like to see candidates who've been around for at least 4 - some people's standards will be lower, and some will be much higher. I recommend you wait 'til at least March, to dispel concerns about inexperience, and to work on some of your weaker areas.
  • Final thoughts
  • If you keep up your current pattern of editing, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be a good candidate for adminship in the future. You do need to work on some areas before you make a strong candidate, though. Participate in more admin-like tasks - more XfDs, more vandalism-patrol, maybe have a look at some of the administrators' noticeboards and see if you can answer some questions in a helpful and polite way. All the best, and even if you don't run for adminship, I think you've already become a valued member of the community, and a helpful editor. riana_dzasta 02:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Seadog is a very kind and great Wikipedian, I often see him around helping users. I agree with riana's comments, good luck my friend! ↔ ANAS - Talk 14:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Seadog, you are a very civil, kind, funny and extremley generous person. Your edits: GOD!! You have like, 4000 or someting edits? In three months? Whew! I, personally, don't see anything wrong with your running for adminship. When you do run, you can count on my support for you! You have what it takes! Kyo cat¿Qué tal?•meow! 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, Kyo took the words right out of my mouth! Though it's 3000 edits, they're all good (unlike mine). You're so nice and caring (etc.)! Tell me when (not if) you go up for Sysopness! Support is here! Keep up the good work and Hinduism will be a FA (I would try to help but I don't know anything about it... :() Well, cheers, mate! :) —Randfan!! 03:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words...I am backing of the Hinduism article (for now) and working on this article, I have completely revamped it (started it all over) and now it is being crazily edited by many different people. I think if I can include some citations it will become a Featured List like its sister.__Seadog ♪ 03:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a classic example of a "reformed vandal". You'll notice looking at his talk archives that Seadog was blocked as a new user for sockpuppet vandalism. I applaud Netsnipe, the admin who unblocked him, for giving Seadog a second chance. Just think, if he had not, we would not have such a productive editor around! Since you are considering going for RFA, Seadog, I will steal "the lowdown" that is used in so many nominations to review your editing and your chances at passing.
  • Edit count - Over 3,000. Very good, especially considering your time here. I have about 3,500 edits in about 10 months of active editing!
  • Time around - Since September, 3 months. You've done a lot of good work in that period of time and you have much more experience and knowledge of policy than I did in that period of time. Still, I agree that you should probably hold off on an admin nom until the new year. Not only will you have more time here, but a higher edit count too ;-).
  • Civil? - Excellent. Not once have I ever seen you lose your cool, which as riana says is to be commended especially when editing religious articles. They say that religion and politics are the two most combative and controversial things one can discuss, and you have handled it extremely well,
  • Edit summaries? - Excellent 100% major/93% minor.
  • Email enabled? - No. Not really a big deal if it's not--I can understand that you don't want your inbox spammed with wikipedia mail--but it may cause an oppose from time to time. Still, we have a lot of sysops who don't have e-mail enabled and it's not an issue that comes up very often.
  • Userpage? - Very well done--perhaps too well. I know, I'm OCD with my userpage too, but I think that you need to worry a little less about how your userpage looks. Some RFA voters frown upon candidates who spend a lot of time editing their userpage: time that could be better spent editing actual articles.
  • Any edit warring/blocks? - No edit warring that I can see, although as I said you were blocked once for sockpuppet vandalsim per above. Obviously this is not a good thing and I can envision oppose votes against it on an RfA. Still, given that it happened when you were a very new user, if you have a good track record past that you may be able to make it through an RfA. simply put, it is probably going to take more for you than another user who was never blocked to pass an RfA. That's another reason I think that you should hold off for a while--possibly even longer than February.
  • FA participation? - Seem to be well on your way with Hinduism. I would wait until this is up to FA to go for admin. FA participation really hits home with many voters. - Mike (Talk) 02:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mikes comments...I was very new and did the mistake that has been a haunting shadow since I have joined. I honestly hope that my achievments on Wikipedia will over shadow my past and very daunting mistake. I do however understand that my future RFA if it were to pass would only pass by a very slim margin. I have always wanted to work past that mistake but I understand that the RFA probably will not pass due to what I did. I will continue to do my work here and hopfully erase any doubts so I am probably going to wait longer for my RFA or maybe not do it at all. I would love to have the Sysop powers but I understand that the mistake I made will probably never 100% forgiven. May Krishna bless.__Seadog ♪ 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, you will be sure to find my support and judging by this review many others. It's not like you were a notable vandal or anything, and I have absolutely no doubt that you will not repeat that mistake. Mike (Talk) 04:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
  • I think you've done very well, and if you tell me, I'll support you for Sysop. Good job --Randfan 01:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Answer, My best work is probably reverting vandalism. I always warn the IP or the user who vandalised too. Also I have worked very hard with other editors to get the Hinduism article up to FA status and the Hinduism article is probably the article I work on the most.
  1. 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?
    Answer, No I try to stay Cool, My page has been vandalise 13 times in the course of a month but this does not bother me.
  • At the moment, I am displeased with Seadog for his apparent propensity to declare a vandalism that has not in any way happened. I did not vandalize the John Wayne article (it is a subject in which I am patently not interested in) and I did not vandalize the Mariska Hargitay article, having only added on 26 November 2006 career information and corrected a typo (my own, by the way). If he flies off the handle and summarily declares responsible changes and minor alterations "vandalism" then his application to be an editor must come under closer scrutiny. I cannot sign into Wiki at the moment because my carrier is a satellite, which makes it hugely difficult to sign on and stay on, but my Wiki user name is Mowens35.67.142.130.43 16:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I just made that mistake today... I have just talked to the user, all cleared up by now I think.__Seadog ♪ 18:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)