Wikipedia:Editor review/Dustihowe2

Dusti

Dustihowe (talk · contribs) I'm thinking about going for an RFA soon. I've had two failed so far and am feeling a little more confident in my editing skills. Recently, I've gone to a test wiki site and have had sysop, crat, steward, and even staff rights. No issues with any of them. When you review, please also state how you would vote currently if I were to be up at RFA. Thanks and muchas gracias for reviewing me!! :) Dusti^SPEAK!! 19:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

Review by Antonio Lopez

Editor has a good Main space count, nice Anti-Vandal Work. I see you have been typing more edit summaries since March. I recommend you to edit more articles to a good article status. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 18:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Review by RyRy

Hello. First of all, editor review is no ticket for adminship, and just because you are an admin on another wiki, doesn't mean you will increase your chances of becoming an admin here... just a reminder. I think you've been a pretty good editor in your time here on wikipedia. I normally close AfDs also, and I've seen your closes, and they are quite accurate. That shows great judgement as an editor. Looking through your contributions, you revert vandalism and warn users accordingly and accurately which is a good trait. But I would like to see some more article writing. Try getting a few WP:DYKs and an WP:GA, or even an WP:FA. That shows you want to help the encyclopedia. One thing I'm just concerned of a bit is you talk a bit too much. Not that it's bad, it actually shows you have good communication, but just try lowering that down a bit. Users might start you think you think wikipedia is a social network. Remember, wikipedia is not a myspace. Almost 50% of your edits are to user talk, which isn't a good sign really. I don't see you in many major disputes about your editing, so that's good. Oh, and try talking more in the talk namespace. That will show you are trying to improve articles in the mainspace. About 24% of your edits are in the mainspace. I would like to see it go to at least 50%, along with quality edits within them. That's about it. If you were to run an RfA now, I would generally be a neutral unless something else comes up I didn't know about now. You would be a good admin, but not right now. Just continue what you are doing, and follow my advice, and you'll become a great editor. If you ever have any questions, my talk page is always open for asking. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Review by User:TravellingCari

Hi Dusti! In the months I've "known" you, I think your work on Wikipedia has improved greatly. You've done well in your AfD adoption program by Keeper and ask questions when you're not sure about what needs to be done. While I can't say anything about talk contributions since I'm among the guiltiest in that respect, I think others might bring that up. Like I said, you've grown a lot on here but I don't think right now is the best time for an RFA. I think you need to spend some more time on article creation (not talking GA here, but look to see what needs creating and do that) and work in other admin areas before an RFA. Right now, I don't think I'd support. I wouldn't oppose, but I'd be neutral leaning oppose. I think you need more time and more practice. No deadline applies here as well. You'll be a good admin, but I don't think you're ready yet. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Comments

Review by Ecoleetage

Hello! First, let me state that I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, particularly your anti-vandalism efforts. If I can offer a few observations on how you may be able to improve your work (and, remember, this is only my opinion):

1. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am detecting too much overt eagerness to become an administrator. Time is your ally, so don't rush it. Unless Jimbo sells out to Rupert Murdoch, this will always be here.

2. I have to echo RyRy's comments on social networking. It is fun to talk with others here (and, yes, Keeper76's Talk Page is a hilarious place to hang out), but try to keep it in moderation.

3. I don't recall seeing any new article creation, except for [1] - and that may constitute a conflict of interest. I would strongly recommend trying to create new articles or working to expand existing articles. If you are in doubt on what to write about, hook up with a few WikiProjects and see what subjects they need covering.

4. When in doubt on a matter, stay out. Your "neutral" comments in this discussion [2] did not help with consensus building. Which then leads to...

5. Don't be afraid to stand up for what you believe in, even if you are the only man standing. I noticed a last-minute switched vote here [3] that came after others (including me) voted opposite your call. I don't know if you had a genuine change of mind -- but if you just wanted to go with the majority and not be seen as the lone voice on the issue, then that is not what leadership is about.

Beyond those concerns, I am glad to see your dedication to improving and protecting the Wikipedia environment. Thanks for listening. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Review by Gwynand

Dusti, wanted to jump in here as I have had a few comments for you that I've held off on over the past few months. First, in general, you're doing very well as an editor. You have two great attributes: 1. You are eager to learn and willing to spend time researching better ways to do things, and 2. Have a good attitude and the ability to minimize arguments through friendly editing. These things should both continue.

As for running for administrator, I still don't think you're quite ready. First, as other people have mentioned, you really have to be conscious of how much it appears you want adminship. Although I'm sure you know the reasons your first two RfAs failed, going for the third without absolutely being ready would be a large mistake. If you were to fail another RfA in the next month (again due to running prematurely, not from edit count but other issues), you would put yourself in that 3-failed-RfAs area and would probably need to wait 6 months to a year to even consider having a chance on your fourth. Try to go about it more naturally... many editors are aware of you, sometime in the future an editor you know and trust will nominate you and you can accept. I really don't agree with another self-nom at this point.

As for my specific issues with potential adminship, my concerns deal with on occasion you biting off more than you can chew and sometimes complicating issues. Within the past few weeks I saw you over at AN/I defending a problematic editor--which was a good thing--but at the same time making pleas to let you handle it because you were a new "adopter". I know you were trying to help, but I felt your involvement was a bit too authoritative and didn't help... correct me if I'm wrong, but the adoption didn't go anywhere and that user was indef blocked shortly there after.

The issues with this authoritativeness doesn't seem to be intentional, but at the same time, I occasionally see you imflaming a situation because you comment without being fully prepared to do so, or fully aware. In reviewing your recent contribs for this, I see that issue with these two edits: 1 and 2. To be frank, such a post is not neccesary and I'm not sure what you mean by saying you are "handling" the third opinion. Anyone can take part in that opinion, and that off hand warning of 3RR was ill-conceived if your intent is to help defuse a situation.

Finally, I think you need to sometimes take criticism or suggestions for what they are. When I brought to your attention how much this RfA vote bothered me, I don't believe your responses to me showed that you understood my concerns. Furthermore, I am still confused how you went from a "moral support" for an RfA that you suggested would automatically fail, to an actual support. If anything, switching to "oppose" would have made sense. Again, it's clear that you did all this is good faith, but I'm still concerned that you will jump into a situation with a level of authoritative advice that is too misguided for adminship. Improvement on these things comes with time, and acknowledgement of the errors. Let me know if you have any questions on any of this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Review by Camaron

Hello, Dusti, I reviewed you before so I thought I would review you again. Overall, I still think you are a great editor. You are friendly, helpful, and have good faith - this should continue. However, there are still, like in most editors, areas where you can improve.

First, looking at you edit count you seem to spend a lot of time in the User talk space, while that is not a bad thing in my opinion (a lot of productive work happens here such as this, which I noticed you were involved in, good use of Jimbo's talk page I must say!), the opposition may invoke the "MySpace" issue if you had another RfA now. In addition, although you have made a lot of edits to the main space (1500 plus), not many of these recently have been anything other than vandal fighting; vandal fighting is good but I think it would be good for you as an editor to diverse more. I would suggest doing more direct article work if possible, articles you have edited such as Indiana Soldiers' and Sailors' Children's Home and Michael Thomas Ford still need work and I am sure you services would be appreciated there. Getting an article to GA/FA is a great boost and something to proud of, but it is not necessary and it definitely does not guarantee you will pass RfA. Remember, please don't force yourself to do what you don't want to do!

I have noticed you have been doing some dispute resolution work at Wikipedia:Third opinion, this is good but looking at some of your most recent third opinions given you could improve in this area. You did not appear to follow-up your request for clarification at Talk:Bruce Mackinnon, and the dispute still does not appear resolved. At Talk:Arena Petrol the third opinion you gave was I will make this simple as its a simple answer. The only items that should be place in the article are those who are verifiable and notable. My first thoughts to this are that this is a too simple response to be helpful, try and be specific to the dispute being discussed and try and give a specific resolution. Remember that a third opinion is usually supposed to be a tie breaker, an offering of a compromise if both sides have given valid points, or an offering of an alternative option if the reviewer disagrees with both opinions given before hand - try and get the third opinions you offer to come under at least one of these descriptions. After further thinking, I also will say, although I am being picky here, that what you said was not strictly true in guidelines per WP:NNC; try and word your third opinion if you give one very carefully.

How you respond to criticism, personal attacks, and other such things are important as an editor, but even more important as an administrator. It is nearly impossible to become an administrator, use the tools, and not receive frequent abuse from users. Just to give you a sample, just after getting adminship, I got messages like this for correctly (per WP:PROT) fully protecting an article in a dispute. More recently, this has been among the worst I have received for dealing with block evasion. Hence, it is important you know how to deal with this kind of thing, and there is no one correct answer. Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks is one option, it can work well if an editor can manage it, and avoids escalating the situation. Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks is another that can work. You need to be aware that dealing with criticism requires some similar skills as to dealing with personal attacks, but in many ways different skills are needed. When you do receive criticism, don't be afraid to rebuttal, but one other skill which is good for editing, and great for adminship, is to ready to admit that we are all (I think) human and can be wrong in some circumstances - taking criticism on-board can reflect better on you than not doing so. However, as I have kind of said, balance is important, so this doesn't mean don't stand up for yourself!

Going on from the above I think I should review this incident. First, I can understand while you were offended - there was only one positive sentence in that review and accusations of telling lies and being more of a socialite than a contributor are vulnerable to being taken badly by Wikipedians. Though, I have to say that comments at this "level" are not considered incivility by many Wikipedians, and can be quite frequent on RfAs. I would personally not recommend removing such comments from pages in general, and I strongly recommend you don't remove them from RfAs. My reasons for saying this are it can just escalate the situation (though in this case I am glad to see the issue was discussed civilly on user talk pages), and can generate a perception which may be brought up at your RfA, that you are not willing to take criticism on-board. If I was in your position I would have said directly underneath the review something like Thank you for review. I am glad you think I do good anti-vandal work and I am planning to do some more article writing in the future. However, I have to strongly disagree with you over the suggestion that I am more of a socialite than a contributor. I have done work relevant to Wikipedia in the User talk: space e.t.c.

I have looked at your account entry at Special:Userrights and it appears you have retained rollbacker and account creator rights without much incident. You appear to have done a lot of good work with the latter right as shown here. You briefly lost rollback rights from the entry 02:20, 17 April 2008 B (Talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:Dusti from Rollbackers to (none) ‎ (edit warring on Valencia CF using the rollback button). However, I was already aware of this incident, it was mostly a misunderstanding, and your rollback rights were restored within 24 hours. Your general good use of user rights so far is good to see, and it will help make a case for you to be given more through adminship in the future.

I have noticed you are preparing an RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dustihowe3, there are some further suggestions I can give in this area. When going to an interview in real life it is good to present yourself well through clothing, a similar thing applies (although perhaps it ultimately shouldn't do as much as it does) at RfA on how you present yourself in words. General tips I would give include making such your RfA is at the right place (ie Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dusti 3, and try and give specific and detailed answers to the three standard questions - provide diffs giving evidence for the third one if possible. Your current draft presents yourself quite well, you stick to the idea you want to help out which is excellent. Try not to over pre-emptive counter argue opposes (ie go on the defence) to much in your opening statement, it might give a sense that you lack confidence. I would suggest being honest and straight with people with what you have done, what you want the tools for, and how you can help Wikipedia with them - leave most of the rebuttals to after the RfA has opened as/if they come (but be aware that some RfA regulars don't like it if you "over respond" to the opposition). I would recommend looking at other successful RfAs for ideas, such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Camaron1 for example, but don't copy and paste content from other people's RfAs as if you are found to be doing so it probably won't reflect on you too well.

At present I do not recommend your run for adminship quite yet. I strongly advice you to keep gaining experience and address concerns highlighted in this and past editor reviews; in addition I would suggest your run your RfA while you are quite active, though you are around this is not the case at present. Furthermore, while there is nothing wrong with self-nominations and I have supported many of them, I think a nomination by someone else would benefit your RfA in giving input from someone other than yourself before it even starts. In addition, some users have expressed a perception that you are after adminship just for the power, some users might see a self-nomination as supporting this view, so a nomination by someone else could help tackle this issue for you. You know well many people on Wikipedia, so you should find plenty of people willing to nominate you if you are ready for adminship. I would be quite happy to nominate you in time myself, please drop a line on my talk page if you want to pursue this, and I might even contact you myself if I am confident it is time. You can also have a co-nomination as an extra boost, but more than one co-nomination can be seen as excessive.

To conclude, I wish you continued good luck and happiness in editing Wikipedia and in real life. I hope this review is useful to you, I have gone on a bit but I had a lot to say! Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2008 (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 am pleased with all of my contribuations. I have been active in many areas of Wikipeida. I've been in tough situations before, but have gotten out of them ok. I've made mistakes while on Wikipeida, granted, however who doesn't? I'll get into my troubles in the next section. Here, currently, I am active in !voting for RFA's, closing AFD's, and most recently Account Creation. I think that as an Admin, I'll be a little more helpful in these areas as I can close and delete articles in AFD, create similar usernames as needed with AC, and provide Admin Coaching for those who would like it. I have created one article while on Wikipeida (its still being worked on) and that is ISSCH.

3. 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?

   Whew! Who hasn't? When I first decided to close AFD's, it was with little knowledge. I stepped on some toes and a great admin/editor came my way, and we have worked together over the past couple of months on building my knowledge in that specific area.

4. I looked through your contribs and noticed that you were away for a while....can you explain this?

   I added that question because I knew it would come up. I was away for that lenght of time because I had a forced Wikibreak. You see, I lived at ISSCH and they found out I was editing on Wikipeida. They demanded that I stop using the site until after I graduated. Long story, check my archives and Keeper's archives as well if you would like the whole story. And to be honest, maybe that Wiki break was good for me....idk :)