Wikipedia:Editor review/Bibliomaniac15 3
Bibliomaniac15[edit]
Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) I figure right about this time I should open my annual administrator review page. Basically, my second year admin anniversary is coming up this May Day. A lot happens in a year around here, and I'd like to know whether I still have your trust as an administrator, or just as an editor in general. That is the specific question I would like addressed in this editor review. Comments, questions, and suggestions are welcome. This review will close May 1. bibliomaniac15 04:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Reviews
- I am a new user here, but I am sure that you are doing a good job. I can see from your links that you are very active in the Wiki community. I am sure that you have made valuable contributions here helping others, blocking still others that deserve it, etc., etc. Hopefully you will continue to stay on with Wikipedia. BTW you helped me one day when I needed it. See my talk page Ti-30X (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you're certainly one of the few users that I see active virtually everywhere, but maybe that's because you're a bureaucrat. Anyhow, I like users whose signatures I see in a lot of places: it tells me that they're active, and in general, are doing their job (if you could call it a job). For me at least, you're a trustworthy bureaucrat and administrator. However, there does seem to be a potentially-problematic pattern I'm seeing in your edit count. If we take a look at X!'s counter, it becomes apparent that while your number of edits per month has generally been going up, the number of edits to the mainspace has been going down— very far down. This worries me. In my own opinion, it doesn't matter how good of a bureaucrat or admin you are— it matters how good of an editor you are. I'm not saying your a bad editor, I just think that the article namespace deserves more edits from you.
- Actually, there is one other thing I remember about you. Back in March you renamed me, and I thank you for doing that. However, due to a little mishap on your part where you forgot to mark me as renamed, and some unfathomable eagerness on my part to get renamed, and some unimaginable admin-like tendencies on NawlinWiki's part, this happened. I still don't understand completely why NawlinWiki autoblocked me even now (I didn't abuse the account; it wasn't hijacked), but I do know that if you remembered to mark me as renamed, I would have stopped editing as Codename Colorado and logged out. It is my understanding that because I kept editing after you renamed me (I didn't know you renamed me!), the account Codename Colorado simultaneously was automatically created, autoconfirmed, and made an edit. See: here and here. You see, I still thought that my WP:CHU application was being proccessed, so I decided to continue doing what I always do: recent changes and Twinkle, when in fact I had already been renamed. I succeeded in rectifying the autoblock on my IP by contacting [email protected] (I couldn't edit my own talk page), but even so, I'm still a little angry at you for what you did. I would have slapped you with a WikiTrout had I known what they were back then. At least that's behind us now; I forgive you. (I still want to know what NawlinWiki was thinking, though!) And in conclusion, that is really the only bad thing I have ever seen you do. The Earwig (User | Talk | Contributions) 13:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's odd. I was never made aware of that, so I'm sorry that you've got beef over that. As for edits, theoretically after renaming you wouldn't be technically able to log in; that's how you're supposed to know you're renamed. The software working renames is not the most stable, so I apologize for that. As for article work, I've been thinking of returning to it, but things have come up, and I haven't had much time to do much other than maintenance. I'd like to collab some time, but I have some severe time restraints going around now. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 04:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, there is one other thing I remember about you. Back in March you renamed me, and I thank you for doing that. However, due to a little mishap on your part where you forgot to mark me as renamed, and some unfathomable eagerness on my part to get renamed, and some unimaginable admin-like tendencies on NawlinWiki's part, this happened. I still don't understand completely why NawlinWiki autoblocked me even now (I didn't abuse the account; it wasn't hijacked), but I do know that if you remembered to mark me as renamed, I would have stopped editing as Codename Colorado and logged out. It is my understanding that because I kept editing after you renamed me (I didn't know you renamed me!), the account Codename Colorado simultaneously was automatically created, autoconfirmed, and made an edit. See: here and here. You see, I still thought that my WP:CHU application was being proccessed, so I decided to continue doing what I always do: recent changes and Twinkle, when in fact I had already been renamed. I succeeded in rectifying the autoblock on my IP by contacting [email protected] (I couldn't edit my own talk page), but even so, I'm still a little angry at you for what you did. I would have slapped you with a WikiTrout had I known what they were back then. At least that's behind us now; I forgive you. (I still want to know what NawlinWiki was thinking, though!) And in conclusion, that is really the only bad thing I have ever seen you do. The Earwig (User | Talk | Contributions) 13:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, how does someone review a crat without getting hurt? Just kidding. Let's see: As a general rule, you are literally everywhere, in all areas and your talk page reflects on that. And that you do good work everywhere you are, at least I have not seen any bad things. So I will have to point out just minor flaws in your admin-work, nothing bad, just things to improve. It's the point of this page after all, right? :-)
- Your deletion log shows a common problem of many admins' behavior, particularly those who are around as long as you are: You are using too many abbreviations and shortcuts which new editors will be confused with. When deleting a page because of a RFD discussion, "per RFD discussion" is a correct deletion summary - but it does not help anyone to find the discussion about it. Better cite the correct log entry for the discussion, so everyone can read up on it. Same with "RTV", "[[Wikipedia:Right to vanish]]" or at least "[[WP:RTV]]" is not longer, but it allows people unfamiliar with Wiki-shortcut-speak to understand why you did something. And of course, even on obvious deletions like Nigger please, citing "G3: Vandalism" might make your logs more helpful.
- Same goes for protections and everything else of course, "[[WP:SALT]]" is preferable to just "SALT" for example, for the reasoons outlined above.
- Sorry if this seems like lecturing to you, you don't have to follow anything I said. But you asked for it after all ;-) Except those minor stylistic problems, I cannot find any problems with your admin work. Regards SoWhy 20:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using X!'s counter
Questions
- What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
- The timespan between my last review and now has been a tremendous time of growth for me, meaning more articles written, more articles deleted, more vandals blocked, and more coachees coached than the year before. You can check these accomplishments on my userpage and my logs.
- 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?
- The community has changed a lot within the past year: New faces come up, new incidents happen. I've found myself in points of contention giving my say, but I try as much as I can to remember not to escalate tense circumstances and to be civil at all times. As for a specific incident, I'd say this one comes to mind.