Wikipedia:Editor review/AutomaticStrikeout

AutomaticStrikeout

AutomaticStrikeout (talk · contribs · count) I am a relatively new editor on Wikipedia, and still rather inexperienced. I know that it will still be a while before I can even reasonably consider an RfA, but it is never too early to look for ways to improve. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My primary contributions are related to baseball. I am most pleased by the eleven articles I have created, and also the task force dedicated to umpires that I founded.

3. 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.

   Yes, unfortunately I have been involved in a few disagreements. It is frustrating when my efforts to be constructive are needlessly repelled, but I should work on not letting it bother me so much. Thankfully, I believe I had avoided making uncivilized responses on Wikipedia itself.

Reviews

• I came here from your userpage, which I looked at because your username caught my attention when I saw it on some of the umpire articles on my watchlist. (I assumed at first that your Little League career might have been similar to mine, but now I see the explanation—and I must warn you that your description of Ryan Raburn as an "automatic strikeout" is a BLP violation. Raburn is definitely not an automatic strikeout—sometimes he grounds out, flies out, or hits into a double play!) But seriously, on a quick skim, I don't see any serious problems with your editing. Keep up the good work, and continue to explore interesting things to do around the wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review. I was wondering if anybody was going to comment at all. Good points about Raburn too ;)! AutomaticStrikeout 01:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Review by Dennis Brown

Your CSD log looks good without a lot of misses. You only have three PRODs, with two deletes and one likely transwiki, so that is good. You've only participated in 34 AFDs so far, and your vote was out of consensus 26% of the time, which is a tad lower than what we should shoot for, but for a new editor, is very respectable, telling me you are paying attention to policy and voting with your head and not your heart. You always use edit summaries, archive your talk page discussion, use a reasonable signature, no blocks, all excellent.

Of your total ~10k edits, 77% are to articles, which is excellent. If you ever decide to go for admin, it is helpful if that number is above 50%, or 35% at a minimum, as that tells people you are here to build an encyclopedia. You've already opted into the extra data at [1] which is good. Your edits per article is a bit low at 2.29, but that isn't bad, just one metric that some notice. People who spend most of their time developing articles tend to have much higher edits per page average, people who do a lot of maintenance type tasks tend to be lower.

If you are thinking you might seek the admin bit later on, of course you will need more than 3% in Wikipedia area edits, and for someone that does a lot of article edits like yourself, I would recommend spending some time at AFD. Not just voting, but saving articles as well. 1/3rd of all AFDs end up as a keep. Often this is due to people jumping in, sourcing, cleaning up and turning a bad article into something worthwhile that more obviously passes criteria. It is a good place to find articles that need help. It also is a good place to develop skills in contentious discussions, as well as demonstrating your ability to stay calm and cool in sometimes heated debates. Your votes at AFD are roughly 2/3rds to delete and 1/3 to keep, which is inline with the average outcome, so that is good as it doesn't look like you are a rabid deletionist nor inclusionist.

Your automated edits are around 10% which is perfectly fine. You need to be able to understand automated edits, yet at the same, don't depend on them for the bulk of your interactions and edits, and you seem to be doing that just fine. 10-20% is very respectable and demonstates exactly this.

You've started 15 articles so far, which is pretty good for a newer editor. There is a select group that votes at RfA that prefer to see someone that has created at least 50 articles, although creating 20 or 25 is usually plenty to satisfy most people, and demonstrate your ability to generate content. I notice that most of them are rather short, which is fine, but don't overlook the possiblity of expanding some of those, maybe getting a DYK or GA along the way. You have a focus on sports, which is fine as we need people who are very familiar with the area.

What I have seen of your demeanor has been good. You are clearly an asset to Wikipedia and I think that you are moving in the right direction if your eventual goal is to seek the bit. Doing so will require you venture outside your comfort zone some and become at least mildly familiar with the different boards like WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:3RRN and WP:BLPN, and editing outside of your specialty is helpful just to get a feel how other areas get along and do things. You don't need to become a generalist, just familiar with the other areas, enough to be able to step in and take basic action if you are needed.

All and all, you appear to be moving rapidly in the right direction. I'm still of the belief that someone should be here a year before they seek the bit, regardless of the number of edits they have. This allows enough time to not only learn the technicals, but develop a feel for the culture as well. Assuming you branch out just enough to have a broad set of experiences to draw upon, get a little more experience in admin areas, maybe help clerk at RFPP or similar, then you will be plenty ready for an RfA on your 1 year anniversary. Feel free to ping me then for a complete review and possible nomination a month before your anniversary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have seen you around for a few months here...you made a good call in nominating User:Bagumba for adminship. Anyway, your points seem valid and thought-out in the few AFDs we've both been involved in. I think that AFD is an area that all sports editors (such as yourself) need to be proficient in since a ton of non-notable athletes have pages created, and you seem to have that skill. If I notice anything else in the next few days, I'll drop by again, but that's my first read. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)