Wikipedia:Editor review/Teh tennisman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Teh tennisman

Teh tennisman (talk ยท contribs) I want to become an administrator, but am curious what others have to think of me, thus this request. Also, I wanted to know what others think of me as an editor on Wikipedia. Teh tennisman 13:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Comment from Editor I realize I have spent a lot of time with my userpage; but I put all of my userboxen on individually, so they added up. Also, I am now more into the AfD'ing and recent change patrolling kind of thing. Teh tennisman 19:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Reviews

  • Firstly, you really must be congradulated on your elegant layout to your userpage and the amount of time you have spent working on it - perhaps a little bit too much since around 1/4 of your edit count is towards your userpage!
Secondly, I noticed while searching through the AfD records that you enslisted yourself. Perhaps a little too hastily? Administrators are mostly involved in anti-vandalism which doesn't seem to be your type of thing. Of course, you have listed Mucky for deletion which is a start.
Lastly, your edits don't seem to be very substantial; this is PERFECTLY OK (see WP:Editing Policy/MajorChanges) and don't panic. However I find that it is better to balance between major, minor and wikignome edits and if you want to do the same it's completely up to you. If this case and you are going to be doing larger edits in future, I'd advise you to view Wikipedia:Featured articles and devote yourself an article and make it shine!.
To summartize: Spend a little less time glamourizing your userpage; wait a few months before AfDing; and if you still want to be an Admin get down to some serious Vandal duties!
Hope I've helped. Cheers,
--Anthonycfc (Talk to Me) (sandbox) (E-Count) 19:20 08 Jun 2008 (UTC)
  • Hello, Teh tennisman, here is my review. Sorry for the delay, but Wikipedia spends 30 minutes down for every 5 minutes up, at least from my point. Since you are requesting opinions of you as editor and as future administrator, I will split my review in two parts, the first regarding your current status and what you would need in order to become an administrator. I hope it will help you.
    • Out of the 579 I am reviewing, mathbot reports an edit summary usage of 99% for major edits and 76% for minor edits. Although the numbers are high, since summaries should not take more than a couple of seconds to fill, some suggest to have a higher (above 90% at least in both). 104 edits in user pages indicate a good interaction with other users in personal matters, but 25 edits in article talk pages aren't good numbers, as editors are expected to interact with others when working with articles. My suggestion is to choose an article you like, maybe one about tennis, Michigan, american football, cycling or the Inheritance trilogy, as you are a member of those WikiProjects, and expand it to good article status, coordinating efforts with others in the article talk page, asking for opinions, giving suggestions, etc.
    • Now, I notice you are really willing to be an administrator. You have tried to sprotect articles [1] [2] even though only administrators are able to do that, you have presented yourself in two requests for adminship in June and October, and spend some time reverting vandalism. But your 579 edits in Wikipedia and 76 edits in the Wikipedia namespace is pretty low for most editors, especially when considering you have not posted in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, stated your opinion in only one request for adminship other than your own, participated in two articles for deletion discussion, don't warn vandals with warning templates, and have contributed regularly only this month (in September you contributed in 5 days). I believe you don't really understand what an administrator is supposed to do. Note that this is not an insult, instead it is a comment. My personal point of view is that adminship should be given to those who really need it. It is not a prize for being a good contributor, but instead a right for those who are willing to act as administrators. In the first RFA, you wanted the tools because you were a good user. In your second RFA, you learned that you won't get it by just being a good editor, and instead added some more information about what you would do with the administrator tools, however you don't need them in order to revert vandalism, copyedit articles and help novices. You can do that without having the administrator label. I should be hitting 20,000 contributions pretty soon, and have no interest in becoming an administrator for the time being. Why? Because I don't need those tools for reverting vandalism, helping new people and copyediting. As I said, adminship is not a reward, it is a right, but only for those who are willing to act like administrators.
    In order to become an administrator, you need to first become a good editor. Try to edit articles, to show others you know how to edit (this means not only fixing typos, but also creating good and featured articles. Learn about our manual of style, and give suggestions to others through peer review and requests for feedbacks. Edit articles that are going to have their featured status removed at reviews to keep them as featured. Once you do that, you may begin working your way towards adminship by participating in recent changes patrol, warning vandals with the correct tags, and reporting them to the administrators when necessary. Show others that you understand what fits and what does not fit Wikipedia by participating in articles, templates and categories for deletion. Give opinions about candidates for adminship, to see what others usually request, and to form yourself an opinion about to expect about an administrator. And then, just then, consider posting a new nomination. I am sorry, but I think your next request will fail if you don't stop to think about why you want to be an administrator. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 22:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Well, I have worked a lot on a few pages that were totally illegible and brought them to where they made sense. I have also reverted some nasty vandalism on pages that are about sensitive issues (to some people anyway).
  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 really haven't had many issues; the few that I have I have worked out without too much stress and hope to continue peaceful negotiations in the future.