Wikipedia:Administrator review/Seddon

Seddon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Had a bit of a quiet period through uni, have had an active few weeks. I would love to get some feedback on my recent actions. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 19:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an Administrator does it only include blocking users? - Only reason I ask this is you are currently on review and upon reviewing your blocks ando ther actions you appear to be creating a number of user blocks. Gummibjörn 23:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont quite follow you. Could you rephrase what youv said? :) 86.132.134.78 (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins do tons of things, not just blocks. Apteva (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, all material germane to an administrator's ability to execute his duties competently (that is appropriate for a public discussion) may be addressed in an Administrator review. In most cases, this will include specific blocks, protections, and deletions, as well the sysop's editing habits and contributions (with remarks he made to other editors and in project discussions usually receiving special attention). If, as you say, Gummibjörn, Seddon blocks editors more than he uses his other sysop funcions, then it would probably be fair to focus primarily on his blocking habits; but, generally, anything relevant to how helpful he is as an administrator is acceptable on this page. AGK 11:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to the one edit I saw. It was requested, and it was done. That's what admins do, serve user needs. Apteva (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty disappointed to be told recently that there was "no need" for me to add my thoughts to a recent RfA, see [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfos (talk • contribs)

Disappointing or not, it was true. There was no need for you to add to a closed RfA where the outcome was clear. The closure per WP:NOTNOW was legit. --L P ^talk 14:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, reopening the rfa to allow a single user to provide thoughts on the editor was unnecessary. RFA quickly becomes pile on voting in those situations and the merits of leaving such an rfa open diminish quickly. I do however apologise if it came accross that I felt your view was unimportant. Each and every editors opinion is important on this project. I felt that using the editors talk page would have been a better conduit for this to happen, rather than an rfa that would have been closed within minutes anyway. I hope this alleviates concerns you might have had. Feel free to reply here on on my talk page. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 18:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt your initial response on my Talk page was quite defensive, so thanks for clarifying. I would gently suggest that you could try and be more open to people questioning what you have done. In some cases, it may be useful to take a "tell me more" attitude to explore their concerns rather than quickly shutting them down. And I would add that my commenting on someone's user talk page is a lot different to commenting at an RfA, where essentially comments have been invited, and there is opportunity for open community discussion, and the finished product is archived for future reference. Hope this is helpful. Johnfos (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Seddon's conduct in the discussion you cite is concerning to any degree. On the contrary, his comment seemed to me to be friendly, informative, and useful. I respectfully disagree with the thrust of your complaint, John, and would ask you to re-consider whether it is truly a valid one. AGK 11:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't watching this page and just happened to look in here again. AGK, I wasn't making a complaint. I was "gently" offering feedback as part of this admin review process, in quite a "helpful" way I would have thought. Johnfos (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing fine. I have no concerns. AGK 11:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]