Wikipedia:Editor review/BradBeattie

User:BradBeattie

BradBeattie (talk · contribs) I've been on Wikipedia since 2004, although my contributions were only spurty at first. I'm trying to take a more active role here and I'd like to know if I'm working in the right direction or if there's a more productive route for me to follow.

More specifically, I requested adminship about a week ago. I was declined primarily because of low activity, votes in AFD that weren't backed by policy, and reverting vandals without leaving messages on their talk pages. In the past week, I've tried to take that feedback and use it appropriately. I won't make another RFA for another couple of months, but I'd like to know if I'm on the right track. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

• Hi, Brad. How are you ? You are headed in the right direction. What it takes is time. I am in much of the same "boat" as you having been a long-term editor(more than 1 year), but starting out good, editing sporadically for a while, and then kicking it up a notch in the past few months. And you have certainly kicked it up a notch in the past month with more than 800 edits this month. What it will take is time. I am a frequent voter on Rfa and I see it all the time. Some of the more picky voters see the graph on the wanna-be-kate's-tool and get alarmed whenever they see a recent jump in activity. Sometimes they look less faorably on a old sporadic user who comes a live than a newbie who comes flying out of the gate. Here's some more specific advice:
  • You've got your piece de resistance article.999, and that's good. Now work on it some more, or maybe find some other articles which need polishing up.
  • Try to vote in Rfa at least a few times. Being absent from Rfa and then showing up when you want to become one, is to many of the voters on Rfa like not registering to vote for years and then running for political office. You're already very active in Afd and that is good.
  • You have excellent experience with images(something I need to work on).
  • Maybe a little bit more experience with categories and templates may be a good thing for an Rfa.
  • Consider becoming involved in one or more Portal or working on a wikiproject. That will help round out your wiki-experience.

Closing: Don't get discouraged. These things take time. Your "spread" of articles is good- you edit to WP namespace, talk pages, etc. One more thing I'd like to add: Next time you go for Rfa, try to have a better statement and read the questions posted now. Even if you don't vote on Rfa, read how every candidate answers the questions and think how you would answer them. Additionally, there are the "optional" questions (which aren't really optional), prepare for those. Quick cookie cutter answers to the Rfa questions give the voters the message that you are either not taking the Rfa very seriously or that you don't know what being an admin involves- not saying either of those were the case in your Rfa, but that's the impression they got. There is no "right" answer on the Rfa questions- they are more there to see what your thought process is, how you see your role on wikipedia, etc. Keep up the good work. Hope this helps. Jcam 00:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hello BradBeattie, how are you doing? Here are some comments (which may clash or agree with Jcam's ones, of course).

  • Out of around 2100 edits, I see about the same amount of edits in user talk and in article talk pages, half in the article namespace, and around 17% in the Wikipedia namespace. Those are good numbers, but as you had seen, they can be considered low by some. Users who give opinions in RFAs don't ask for thousands of edits, but instead, a good number of contributions in the last months. Personally, someone who averages 500-750 edits in the last 6 months is well enough. As I told Cbrown1023 in his review, the fact that he has 10,000 edits in a single month means relatively little when requesting adminship if his contributions in previous months were null or near null. As I said, people don't ask for a huge amount of edits, but instead, regular usage of Wikipedia. Some users have an average of 500 edits per month, which is fine for them because they are busy, but make each of those edits weight. Others have an average of 2000 edits per month, because they are able to spend more time here. If in the last four or six months both maintain that average, both will have the same chance for adquiring adminship (that is, if their reasons are valid). So, don't worry about failing a RFA, if you let enough time to pass, and focus in an average number of edits instead of trying to break records in contributions, you will have a new chance soon.
  • I see you have sent a good number of webcomics to AFD, and have actively participated in others, with near 250 edits in AFD. However, you have very few in TFD and CFD, either try to spend some time there as well, or whenever you request adminship, state that you will stay away in the beginning from those maintenance tasks.
  • Mathbot reports 100% for major edits and 61% for minor ones. Try to keep both of them above 95% at least. Summaries are useful for everyone. Good to see you use them always with major edits.
  • Checking some reverts, this and this one do not appear to be vandalism. This could be called a misinformation ({{verror}} in example). 6 reports to AIV could be considered too few for someone interested in adminship to handle vandals, but it is good to see you have done them all since your RFA, which indicates you have learned something.
  • I have been told that, when reverting something from an anonymous user without warnings before, you should use {{welcomeip}} before placing the warning, as it is an even a "friendlier" way of approaching them. Maybe you could consider that as well?

  I don't see major problems (other than calling vandalism in edit summaries to some tests). You are on the right track, and it is good to see you were not disappointed by the result of your RFA. Consider checking TFD and CFD a bit more often, continue with AFD as you are doing, and be a bit more specific in summaries when reverting vandalism. Remember, it is not important to be the first one reverting, but it is to be as exact as possible. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 16:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • One last comment: in User:BradBeattie/WikiGuard, you have a screenshot of the program, Image:WikiGuard.png. However, our Fair use criteria does not allow fair use images in the user namespace. If the program is indeed free, it should be possible (though I am not sure) to release screenshots free as well. Check {{Free screenshot}}, in example. Good luck with that program, too! -- ReyBrujo 17:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   I'd say the biggest effort that's pleased me is my continuing efforts to combat vandalism here. I used to watch the recent changes feed manually, but that got tiresome, so I developed my own app (WikiGuard) to help me out. It's still in its birthing stage, but I have high hopes for it.

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?

   Honestly, not that I can recall.