Wikipedia:Editor review/Rehman 2

Rehman 2
Hi. I have been an active global editor since May 2008. I am currently a Reviewer and Rollbacker here at en.wiki. I have attempted to go for adminship twice, both failing per WP:NOTNOW ("insufficient experience in all admin areas"). Since my last RFA in July, I have considerably changed myself; my editing areas, attitude, as well as my signature and userpage. I have also decided to never again go for another self-nom, and to wait till someone nominates me if they feel when I am ready. I believe my full potential cannot be unlocked without the tools the admin flag offers. I will be strictly off Wikipedia for the next week due to real-life concerns; keeping this open so people could easily review my edits. I welcome all honest constructive criticism. Reh man  13:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)  Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My work is mainly based in maintenance, relating to deletions, cleanups, and arrangements. When it comes to content, may main contributions would be Template:Infobox power station, List of largest power stations in the world, and many more (SoxRed's tools to analyse: Pages Created or Top Namespace Edits).
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * I respect all editors in all ways possible. In my editing career, I have only once came into dispute with another editor, and I am proud to say we are good friends now.
 * I respect all editors in all ways possible. In my editing career, I have only once came into dispute with another editor, and I am proud to say we are good friends now.

 Reviews 


 * Hello, Rehman. To me, it seems this editor review is more about you becoming an administrator. In November 2010 you asked HJ Mitchell whether you were ready for RFA or not. Becoming an administrator means being trusted having the administrator tools, and having a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For example, as an administrator you have to know when and when not to block a user. However, becoming an administrator is not a big deal, mainly because you can request most of the admin actions all administrators can do, by reporting vandals to WP:AIV, reporting users to WP:ANI, requesting page protection at WP:RFPP, etc; and the fact that Wikipedia already has ~1,800 administrators at the time of writing this. Being an administrator doesn't mean you are allowed to perform an action because you simply "can do it"; you have to know when and when not to perform an admin action. When the users vote in RFAs, they vote based on what they expect from a candidate; for example, has this user tagged articles/pages for speedy deletion and shown a good understanding of the CSD policy? Basically, like HJ said, just make yourself useful and be more active in the admin-related areas. I suggest reading through Shirik's criteria for supporting an RFA candidate. I just read through that, and it covers most of what the users expect from an RFA candidate. Also, try getting yourself more involved in other parts of XfD, like AfD and RfD. I appreciate your work at TfD. Closing XfD's appropriately (especially AfD's) shows a good understanding of consensus and the reliability of the votes. Finally, adminship should only be seen as helping maintaining Wikipedia, not that you have more power. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 13:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Heymid. Thanks for the review. I have replied together with your message on my talkpage. Kind regards. Reh  man  02:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, you appear to be a great editor, but I think that your goals on the project are slightly... misguided. You put a lot of emphasis on obtaining user rights (three requests for global permissions emphasis this, as well as the various userboxes that you display on your userpage). Please remember that this is just a website on the internet, and that the rights that you may have here mean nothing in the long run of things. Seriously, they are just rights - none of them are a big deal. All that added rights mean is added responsibility - a fact which you will learn eventually, but it can't hurt to be told it now. Regards, Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ajraddatz. Thanks for the review. I think you slightly misunderstood the use of flags. These are not really "badges" and does not "mean nothing". Reason I am requesting these flag are because the type of work I do requires them. For instance, I am a sysop at Commons, and I do a lot of maintenance work there that could not have been done without these flags... Reh  man  02:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely understand why flags exist, but some of your actions cause me to doubt that you do. Regardless of that, if you do, then I see no problem with you as an editor. Keep up the good work :) Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) Reh  man  01:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your head appears to be on straight, however your recent RFA (April 2011) was sunk based on the fact that you took additional consideration to look at a potential CSD:A7 (to try again the CSD status of the article). Best of luck in the future. Hasteur (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Reh  man  02:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)