User:Dennis Brown/RfA/Mephistophelian

Review of Mephistophelian
This is an editor review for admin. Please do not modify it.

Stats

 * First edit: Feb 2010
 * Total SUL edits: 38,389 (very spiky, however)
 * Article contribs: 39%
 * Project space: 3.22%
 * User rights:autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker
 * Summaries: 99%+
 * Block log: clean

Recommendations
Some of these are just observations, things that might get noticed and you might have to explain at RfA, not necessarily critical but they might stand out a bit and need explaining as a candidate.
 * Areas of Interest
 * Anti-vandalism, backlogs, OTRS, and revision deletion (per the email request)

I see work at AIV, the Teahouse and AfC. These are good areas, but underappreciated at RfA. This will pose a problem. Talk pages consume well over half your edits. This isn't a bad thing by itself, but it throws up red flags for people at RfA, some which might jump to conclusions. Summaries, userboxes, signature: All looks good. I like your dashboard, I might have to steal that :) Haven't seen any particular issues.
 * CSD
 * Looks good, you might want to check the blue links, like 2014 NRL season which might need zapping again since it was recreated and never sourced.
 * PROD
 * Not much to look at. I personally like to add notes to blue links for both prod and csd to explain them, particularly pre-RfA, but also helps me later.
 * AFD
 * 113 total, 93% with consensus (consensus + where no consensus was found) which is more than high enough.
 * NAC AFD
 * Looks worse than it is. Efik language was kept but shows deleted in that stat, the whole AFD is malformed and needs repair. I am not a fan of NAC, they tend to hurt you more than help you.
 * Copyright
 * Sanctions (via )
 * I didn't see anything. Taken to 3RR once, no action.  No worries at all.
 * Monthly contribs
 * This is going to hurt you. The vast majority of voters want to see a degree of consistency, and that is lacking here.  I think you need at least 6 months of regular contribs, and 12 months with only 3 months of wild variation is better.  It isn't a nail in the coffin, but this alone might warrant waiting a couple of months.
 * Admin area experience
 * Articles created
 * 84, which is rock solid. I didn't spot check, assuming there is the normal mix in there.
 * Article and User talk
 * Automated edits
 * 45% automated edits, which is pretty high. To compare, mine is just over 11%.  You have so many total edits, however, that I don't think it will be a major problem. 25% or less is better, as it shows you don't just template people, but will instead talk to them and explain the problem.  Of course, if you spend a lot of time with CSD or AIV, this number tends to be higher.
 * Talk archive
 * I see you archive, that is good.
 * Misc.
 * Personal

Final
I don't think an RfA would be successful if it were started today due to some concerns over edit patterns. This wouldn't stop you in the future, but your edit history is very spiky, and history has shown candidates have a very difficult time if they can't show 12 months of steady edits, or having 12 of the last 18 months being steady. By steady, I mean having at least a few hundred edits per month. There is nothing wrong with having 2000 one month and 400 the next, we all have lives, but the months with less than 100 outnumber the ones with more. People want a degree of consistency and availability from admin. While spikes of 10k edits shouldn't be a cause for alarm, some people will find it odd, so just be aware of that.

The other problem is the mix of contribs. The admin areas you have worked in are underappreciated at RfA. AIV work gets little credit and there is a perception that we aren't short handed there.

What I suggest is taking the next 6 months, working some on actual article content some, providing sources, creating a few articles from scratch, perhaps getting one or two to GA status. Normally I don't say this is required, but I think this will help reassure people that you aren't just maintenance editor (automated edits) and can actually contribute content as well. It would be helpful if you can be more consistent in your contributions. This might not be possible, I have no idea what your personal life is like, but just be aware that it will be noted at RfA, and some will object if there are long spans of very little activity.

I would also recommend patrolling AfD more. Be careful to not just vote to delete articles, keeping your delete votes no more than 2/3rds of your contribs there if possible. What you will find is a number of articles that are worth saving with some sources. You look, you find sources, you add sources and a little content, then you vote to keep. This is worth logging if you like. This gets you good experience and a positive view from others as it is helping build the encyclopedia. It also teaches you about consensus and sourcing, something missing from your profile considering how many edits you have. Use the links in the RFA box above to help guide you, it is the same box they will use at RfA.

Sorry this took so long, your profile is very, very different and I didn't want to rush it, and the request came at the same time a number of other projects were due as well.