User:Dusti/ER

Dusti^{talk to me} 17:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dustihowe

Dustihowe (talk · contribs) Please be as honest as possible when reviewing this. I am wanting to see where I am in your eyes as an editor on Wikipedia. Dustihowe  Talk  19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

Reviewed by Fabrictramp

I'd encourage other editors to review Dustihowe as well, as I have adopted him and I know he'd benefit from more viewpoints than just mine.

First, let me say good job on the edit summaries. I'm just looking at main space edits here, but the majority of them have clear summaries. You might consider going for 100% -- you can click on the "my preferences" link at the upper right, then click on editing, then check "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". It's an easy way to remember to use edit summaries.

Speedy deletions are something that were commented on a lot at your RfA, and it's something you still need a bit of work on. Removing the speedy tag on this diff[1] was definitely correct. So it puzzles me why you added a speedy tag here[2], using the same reason on an article that has about the same amount of information. Uncle G has an excellent essay here which might give you some food for thought. I'd also encourage you to either have Wikipedia:SPEEDY#Criteria open in another tab on your browser or printed out and next to you when nominating articles for speedy deletion. Make sure when you nominate an article for speedy deletion that you are clear on which section it falls under (and it's not a bad idea to reference that in your nom -- admins who work a lot in the area know them by heart, so adding something like A7 to your reason will tell us quite a bit.) I spend a tremendous amount of time working with deletions, and I still reread it frequently to make sure I have every detail of it correct. When in doubt, it's always okay to use a proposed deletion instead of speedy, to fix up the article yourself, or to tag it so someone else will fix it up.

Just as a further bit of learning, in this diff[3] where you placed a {{hangon}} tag on an article someone else nominated for speedy deletion, it was perfectly fine to simply remove the speedy tag. The only editor who is not allowed to remove a speedy tag is the creator. (As a courtesy to the editor who placed the speedy tag, I often drop a friendly note on their talk page, telling them why I removed the tag and asking if there is something going on with the article that I missed which might give me cause to delete it.)

A random sample of your mainspace edits that don't involve speedy deletion, while minor, are very good -- no problems there. Usertalk edits also look civil, which is good. :)

To sum up, I'd say the only real problem is speedy deletion. Just for your own person editing satisfaction, you might check out a wikiproject or two, perhaps involving your state, a hobby, or whatever area is interesting to you. This is totally optional, but sometimes it's nice to take a break from New Page Patrol and work on some established articles.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Review by Pedro

Hi Dustihowe, and thanks for your hard work here. I note above you're working with Fabrictramp and that's good. A review of recent contributions shows some points to consider. 1) Your recent Request for rollback - I'm not sure why you didn't just go either to WP:RFR or approach one admin - you seemed to have asked three in quick succesion? Remember that "unseemly haste" can be a bit of a bug bear around here. 2) Although getting better, I think you really could do with remembering your edit summaries, and not relying on auto generated ones - I know it may seem picky put a brief description of your actions is so important. 3) Whilst wikilove is a great concept, sending out serial smiles is not for sure the best use of time. I know RC patrol causes a bit of a burn out after a while, but there's allways Special:Random - get to any old page and tidy and copy edit it.

These are only small asides though. On the whole your work is great, plenty of accurate vandal reverts and good interation with other editors. I've also seen you at WP:RFA with insisightful comments. Please take my review as positive criticism, and most importantly keep on enjoying editing Wikipedia, and being proud to be a Wikipedian!! Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Review by Anonymous

I challenged an article as NPOV and described my points on the talk page according to Wikipedia standards. This editor removed my NPOV tag without bothering to discuss it, against Wikipedia rules. Furthermore, no rationale was given, other than "I think it's neutral." This kind of behavior by editors is part of the major problem that Wikipedia suffers from. Unilateral decisions by people who have power, and don't need to follow the rules themselves. 70.55.144.99 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Review by Voyagerfan5761

I feel I should weigh in on the above IP's comment first. I know this page is for review of Dustihowe, but let me first say that "people who have power, and don't need to follow the rules themselves" doesn't apply to anyone on the wiki. Dustihowe is not, to my knowledge, an administrator, and so the only power he has is the ability to edit semi-protected pages, move articles, create pages, and rollback edits (recently gained).

However, now that I've established that Dustihowe has +rollbacker, I'd like to point out that, in my opinion, rollback without a custom summary was an inappropriate use in that case. Anonymous editors who add tags to articles are generally not vandals -- at least, that's been my experience. That's one thing I'll comment on, is that you should probably consider a little more when rollback is appropriate. It's supposed to be used for reverting unconstructive edits, not reverting tags without a summary. Not to advertise blatantly, but I (and other users) have written scripts like this one that allow using rollback but with a custom summary, so there's both convenience and clarity.

Going back a few days to the end of January, I saw you tag a redirect page (that wasn't) using {{delete}}. I'd suggest becoming more familiar with CSD criteria, as there are specific speedy-deletion tags that apply to redirects or "empty" pages like that. For that goal, I recommend using Twinkle, which has a full library of tabs for reverting vandalism, tagging pages for deletion, and warning users; and Friendly, which has functions for welcoming users and (more importantly) tagging articles with maintenance templates.

I need really want to get back to vandalism patrol right now, so I won't go back any further, but those are the things that jumped out at me. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Master of Puppets from Review

Hey there! I won't pile on to the above critique; I agree that some more knowledge of speedy criteria is needed if you intend to do tagging work, and also if you become an administrator. Aside from that, great job fighting vandalism! The one area that I would suggest you improve is your participation in WP:XFD. Working at places such as WP:MFD and WP:AFD can teach you a world of policy and technique, and I found it very educating when I was taking my first WikiSteps. Also, you may want to try your hand at some article improvement; if you wish, you can start out small, doing stubs or typos, mainly to get a handle on that section of the encyclopedia.

Everything else looks great, though. Cheers! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Review by Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)}

Fighting vandals is of course important, but having GA's and FA's is usually much helpful when having a RfA. Keep up the good work, and apply for Admin. after, 3 months or 4 perhaps.

Cheers! Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 08:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Review by Camaron

Hello Dustihowe, I have now got round to reviewing you as you requested. First, I have always considered you a kind and constructive editor, and it has been very satisfying been able to help you on Wikipedia. First - I like your user page, which is not that surprising since you have borrowed a lot of the code from mine, I do take it as a complement that you think my user page is good enough to be made into your own.

I see you have got into new page patrol work, which is good if you are aiming to be an administrator. I have taken the liberty of looking through your deleted contributions and a few things are clear. First, a high percentage of your deleted edits have delete tag as the edit summary, which is not very descriptive - I would suggest you try and use something more descriptive such as Nominating for speedy deletion, or even better try something like Nominating for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7.

Second, how you use the WP:CSD could be improved. For example, you nominated Tiscali TV (Italy) for deletion under WP:CSD#G11 - it was a list of channels in a encyclopedic format, not blatant advertising. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. Also try and be careful when using WP:CSD#G1 - only pure non-understandable content is nonsense i.e dgsdhsdsdsa. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases. Some of what you have nominated under this criterion comes under fictional material and implausiable theries. Try and use other criteria such as WP:CSD#G3 or WP:CSD#A1 as appropriate instead. I am been critical here as administrators will review your deleted contributions if you run for adminship and comment on how you tagged deleted pages. Also, if you become an administrator you will frequently have to explain your deletion reasons to authors on your talk page, and even at Wikipedia:Deletion review - so it is worth getting it as right as you can. I would recommend you have WP:CSD open in another tab when new page patrolling - that is what I did, and it is helpful. Finally, try and consider adding appropriate editing tags and quickly cleaning up, or even using WP:PROD or WP:AFD, as an alternative action when viewing new pages.

I see you recently gained access to the rollback tool, and you are making good use of it - which is excellent. However, try and avoid creating controversy with it such as the above. Generally speaking, only use it to revert pure vandalism and your own edits - whatever you do, don't give an administrator a justification to take the tool off you. I have found no significant civility issues in your edits though, which is very promising.

It will be of benefit to you at WP:RFA if you continue to make article contributions - it is not necessary for adminship, but it will please people at RFA if they see clear evidence of you helping to build the encyclopedia. In particular getting an article to Wikipedia:Good article status or Wikipedia:Featured article status on a topic you like is a big bonus. Joining and participating in a WikiProject for an area of articles you want to contribute to such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games or Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools (these are just examples of ones I have joined) is also a good idea. More contributions to other processes such as WP:AFD will help you too.

Overall, with more experience I think you could make a good administrator with more experience. One final tip, check out Wikipedia:Admin coaching if you have not already done so, and happy editing! Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Review by Keeper

Note to readers: This is copied from my talk page

I'll make some observations here. Feel free to copy/paste this to your official editor review if you so choose.

1. I think you have very good editor qualities. You have an eagerness to do things The Right Way ^TM and an eagerness to learn and try new things.

2. When something is done incorrectly (we've all been there, I promise), you are quick to fix and/or apologize if necessary, and quick to find the right way to proceed.

3. You just seem nice! :)

Slight bit of criticism, I hope you take it constructively as it is given in good faith and not meant as a detraction from your otherwise strong character.

1. The eagerness is good, and boldness is generally good, but it is vital that you look for relevant policies and guidelines before acting in areas of the wiki that may be seen as contentious or controversial (like debates). The guidelines are quite clear about non admin closures and the parameters that they fall into and could've easily been checked before closing several AfDs. (For future reference, see WP:NAC). When you are up for an RfA again, the questions that are asked of you assume that you already understand the policies, not just that you are willing to learn the policies. Now, I realize there are more policies than could possibly be learned even with several years experience (and just when you learn one, it changes anyway:) In a nutshell, it is better to do it right the first time then to have to backtrack your contribs with apologies and reverts later, especially for an admin. Mistakes happen (I made two doozies yesterday), but it is far less stressful for you and for anyone working with you to be able to trust that the right thing is being done without having to dig through your contribs. If you don't know it, ask it, once you do know it, do it! Does that make sense?

Anywho, all that to say, I think you are a great Wikipedian with your heart in the right place. Just make sure your mind and your fingers keep up! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Review by Lradrama

Dustihowe has worked hard and consistently since the advice left for him at his first attempt at an RfA. He's doing a lot of useful vandal fighting and has helped others improve by leaving his comments on RfAs. These, rather than being either Support, Oppose or Neutral followed by a signature, have been the much more appreciated view-point followed by his reasons for his decision. Overall, I think Dustihowe is a hard-working, consistent editor, with a desire to keep improving and lend a helping hand, this editor review being one indiator of this.

However, there are areas in which you can improve. I do not believe a GA or an FA is needed in order to make yourself a great editor and stand you in good stance to become an admin - so do not let that bother you. However, mainspace edits are rather low, with not much evidence of article development. Much of this may well be vandal-reversion. While admins do not necessarily need to be expert article-writers, many users come to admins asking for their help, and seen as most people discover Wikipedia's workings by contributing to articles, a good knowledge of that area would be useful.

Also, take more haste at times, as a lot of rash decisions seem to have been made in your past. The speedy deletion issues have crept up in a few of the points made above, so please take care there in future, and if needed, re-familiarise yourself with the rules. Irritating it may be, having to read through it all, but it'll only aid your development.

Don't neglect the edit summaries, they are essential, and seeing what you enter in them can often indicate what sort of editor you are, how much care you take over the way you operate and the quality of your work. The first review by Fabrictramp contains some useful advice on this.

And finally, going back to rash decisions, this edit stood out to me. Why did you remove this IP view? Would you have done it if it was written by another editor with a username? Did you remove it because it had a slighty more negative slant than the other reviews? OK, the IP did get a bit snappy, and that is wrong, but I don't agree with fully removing the comment, because he was giving an account of his / her experiences with you, and in a way, assisting your improvement as a Wikipedian. He/she is pointing out something that needn't happen again if you take note.

So, in conclusion, I'd give it three or four months more at least before deciding to have another go at becoming an admin, but generally your editing is of good quality and is constent and constructive. Please take note of all pointers left by people commenting here, don't hesitate to interact with others, no-matter what the situation, and just avoid rash decisions. Best of luck, and keep up the good work. Lradrama 15:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Review by Cameron

Hi Duster! I too posted my first Rfa after my first 500 edits! I am confident, however, you have learnt loads since your first Rfa and are now aware as to why it failed. Sadly on wikipedia adminship can not be granted to users straight away however nice they seem to be. Possible candidates have to prove themselves by being on wikipedia a while and having edits of good quality and quantity. You seem to have both of these. Thanks also for your review and your friendly advice, you are a merit to the encyclopaedia! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:36, 14 April 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 the creation of ISSCH. I am also pleased with my new pages patroll as well.

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?

   I have been in few conflicts, if you want to call them that. Its hard to deal with newbies as they remove speedy delete tags or create inapporpriate pages, but I am trying to deal with it the best as I can. I feel that overall, I have delt with it in an excellent manner.

3. Hi, I find this recent edit very interesting (diff). Why do you feel it is necessary to put these startling tags on such a developing article that the editor created not one minute before? ALTON .ıl 19:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

   I placed them there because in the current state, the article needed such changes. I feel that when someone introduces a new page to Wikipedia, they are either done with the page, or they feel that the article is complete enough, and they want to see what we think about the article. Dustihowe  Talk 

   I see that it is a personal perspective, and not something I can call you on. Thanks. ALTON .ıl 20:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Review by Blackzeppelin

Dustihowe did the following:

1. reverted my edits on the articles Takeshi, Reiko, Akira (name), and Kenji
2. posted vandalism warnings on my user talk page
3. reported me to the WP:AIV

all without really reading my edits first and just assuming I was blanking important information. What I did was to make those pages more conforming to Wikipedia standards, by removing obscure links to articles. Dustihowe clearly does not have a good understanding of how Wikipedia articles should look like, and promoting Dustihowe to adminship would lower the quality of this online encyclopedia. --Blackzeppelin (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)